Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Kosovo

Dr. Vincent Cable: From which budgets the United Kingdom costs of the Kosovo war will be paid. [86530]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Within the defence budget the costs of operations lie where they fall. Additional costs arising as a direct consequence of the United Kingdom's military contribution to the international response to the Kosovo crisis are, however, being separately identified and will form the basis of a claim on the Government's contingency reserve. It has been agreed that the reserve will cover the net additional costs of those operations when my Department is unable to accommodate them without detriment to other commitments.

Dr. Cable: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply and suggest that the armed forces, which are conducting themselves with their traditional professionalism, now face a more familiar and formidable adversary than the Serb army—the British Treasury. In that context, I express appreciation for his reply, which was reassuring. Will he reiterate that the costs of that necessary and important military adventure will not be met at the expense of other armed forces activity?

Mr. Robertson: The battalions of the Treasury are on the side of our forces in Kosovo, though they, like everybody else, remain professional and vigilant.

Ms Dari Taylor: Given the scale of the atrocities that are being uncovered by KFOR, would it not be more appropriate for my right hon. Friend to say what would have been the cost of not acting in Kosovo?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt at all that the cost of doing nothing, or of standing back and wringing our hands at the beginning of the campaign, would have been immeasurably greater. There will be costs and the international community will have to pay substantially for the restructuring and the rehabilitation of Kosovo, and for helping the countries of

south-eastern Europe in general, but they will be nothing compared with what the costs of standing back and letting ethnic cleansing succeed would have been.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am glad to hear that the contingency reserve will be raided for the Kosovo costs, and I congratulate our armed forces on doing an excellent job, but the Secretary of State will know that they are stretched to breaking point. I know that he is concerned about that, but is he able to guarantee that there will be no slippage in equipment programmes, or in any other programmes in his budget, to make up the costs of the Kosovo conflict?

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations, because I remember the letter he wrote to The Times on 13 May, but, as he is gracious enough to congratulate me on what the forces have done, I will not be so mean-minded as to remind him of what he wrote. I am conscious of the old adage, "Always forgive your enemies, never forget their names." I can tell him that, of course, considerable strains are being experienced by the forces at present and they are having to put up with considerable privations, as are the families of service people. That issue is high on our agenda and there will be no slippage in any of the equipment programmes. In the past two weeks, I have announced two major procurement decisions, giving our troops the best possible equipment for the future.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Although those contributions may be dealt with in terms of covering the current activity in Kosovo and the developments that are taking place, might it not be worth while for the international community to consider an area in which billions and billions of pounds could be involved if there were other such actions or attempts to resolve certain situations?
The Tobin tax, which is a tax on international currency speculation, could be popular. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Department for International Development and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We might be able to take a lead on that, as we have on trying to tackle international debt.

Mr. Robertson: That question goes slightly beyond my remit. My hon. Friend should perhaps float the idea of taxing currency speculation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The whole House is grateful to the Secretary of State for the insight that he gave us a moment ago into the internal workings of the Labour party or, separately perhaps, the Government. Can he reconcile the apparently conflicting reports about the effectiveness of NATO's bombing campaign? Does the number of tanks and armoured vehicles apparently retreating unscathed to Serbia undermine NATO's claims of success or emphasise that not only the air campaign, but the credible threat of invasion by ground forces capable of high-intensity warfare, persuaded Milosevic to capitulate?

Mr. Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is probably the only Liberal Member of Parliament who has declared himself out of the race for leader, so I will


not take any lessons from him on intra-party fratricide. He raises an interesting point about the amount of heavy armour that the Serbs clearly had in Kosovo during the past year. We may have underestimated the sheer number of tanks and armoured personnel carriers that they had—largely hidden—during the whole of the campaign. However, it was the relentless bombardment from the air that kept all those tanks hidden. So long as that bombardment went on, those tanks were not out destroying villages as systematically at the end of the campaign as they were at the beginning.

Mr. bin Duncan Smith: May I pick up on the last question and ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that, when we read the reports in today's papers about the sheer scale of the armour, vehicles, and troops that are coming out of Kosovo, questions remain as to exactly how those were kept so securely away from NATO targeting and NATO aircraft? Can we not learn from some of the problems that the Secretary of State has just described? If we are not to make similar mistakes in the future, do we not need a public inquiry—as we have asked for—so that the public can be absolutely certain that if we have to engage in such an operation in the future, we shall know its real limitations?

Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position, which I am sure he will find extremely rewarding. I know that, on his first occasion at the Opposition Dispatch Box this afternoon, he would have wanted to congratulate British troops on their achievements so far. Yesterday, the last Serb troops looked at Kosovo through their rear-view mirrors. Yesterday, the air campaign was called off and during the night the Kosovo Liberation Army signed up to a military technical agreement showing how it will demilitarise and disarm. Today, we can justifiably say that we have had a substantial success in Kosovo, and that it is down to those who put their lives on the line throughout the campaign.
On learning how much armoury the Serbs had inside Kosovo, we shall clearly want to look at the evidence available to the troops now that they are in there. Despite the number of tanks, armoured personnel carriers, artillery and troops that the Serbs had in that area, they still lost. The ethnic cleansing has stopped and the Serbs are out of Kosovo.

Oral Answers to Questions — Aircraft

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What representations he has received on his Department's procurement policy in respect of United Kingdom-built aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [86531]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The MOD receives representations on its procurement policy for aircraft and their components built in the UK from time to time.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The Minister will be aware, from forceful representations made by both my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and me, of the growing concern about British Aerospace's facility at Dunsfold, which is a centre of excellence for return-to-work contracts for the RAF Harrier. Is he

aware that, although half of that work is for foreign defence forces, the other half is for the RAF, and that a cloud hangs over the future of that work, which is the prime work carried out at Dunsfold? Is the Minister further aware that the competition for that work coming from the Defence Aviation Repair Agency is not, in the view of those at Dunsfold, fair competition as the DARA is based at an RAF airfield and the costs are not appropriate? Will he ensure that the great expertise and technical skills that the workers at Dunsfold have built up over the years will still be available to ensure that Harriers of the future are as safe and effective as those in the past?

Mr. Spellar: I share the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the work undertaken by those at Dunsfold. I have had representations not only from hon. Members, but from the shop stewards committee there, which came to see me earlier this year. It has invited me to visit the site, which I hope to do some time this year. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have been slightly distracted with other business over the past few months. I reject the hon. Gentleman's insinuation that the competition for the repair work was not conducted fairly. I am slightly surprised to hear a prominent right-wing Conservative so unenamoured of competition. Following the representations, we looked to ensure that there had been proper and effective competition, that work was being won fairly and that there is a role for both Dunsfold and for the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, which does excellent work not just at St. Athan, but at Sealand, Fleetlands and Perth. Those are excellent establishments, which all do good work. They are an important part of Britain's aerospace capability. We appreciate them and do not think that setting up competition between them by criticising one then the other is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the Minister accept the congratulations of both sides of the House on the fact that the Government have sought to buy British-built aircraft? Will he confirm support for a European strategic heavy lift aircraft, known as the FLA?

Mr. Spellar: As my hon. Friend knows, along with our European partner nations, we are evaluating the successor aircraft for heavy lift. A strong contender is the A400M, as the future large aircraft is now known. There are other competitors, and British Aerospace is playing a key part in the Airbus military company. We hope to announce the result of that competition early next year.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not that an inordinately long time to have to wait for the decision on a vital strategic heavy lift requirement for the Royal Air Force, which was identified by Her Majesty's Government last July in its own strategic defence review? Is not it clear that for years the Royal Air Force has needed such a capability of its own? There are perfectly good aeroplanes, such as the C17 or the equivalent Antonov 120, which could have been evaluated long since had the Government had the will or given the matter the priority it deserved.

Mr. Spellar: I welcome that criticism of the previous Government's record of delays. There is slight confusion. The hon. Gentleman is slipping between the short-term strategic lift requirement and the future transport aircraft.


There are two separate but not unrelated competitions, and we hope to make an announcement on both of them early next year. That is by no means an inordinate time scale to undertake proper technical evaluation, especially with a number of partner nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — European Defence Co-operation Initiative

Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the development of the Anglo-French European Defence Co-operation Initiative. [86532]

Mr. Peter Bradley: If he will make a statement on the Government's initiative on European defence co-operation. [86534]

Mr. John Smith: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on European defence co-operation. [86537]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The recent Cologne Council meeting set out the way forward for the European Union's common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy. That built on agreement at the NATO Washington summit, which itself had originally stemmed from the Anglo-French St. Malo declaration in December last year. Our intention is to strengthen the European capability to contribute to security within the framework of the Atlantic alliance as a whole.

Mr. Rammell: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that response. He will be aware that the Conservative party has claimed that European defence co-operation will undermine and weaken NATO. Will he confirm that, at the NATO summit in Washington, the principle of European defence co-operation was supported by all 19 NATO countries, including the United States of America? That drives a coach and horses through the false claims of the Conservative party. Those claims say everything about excessive Europhobia and nothing about the real defence interests of this country.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right in pointing to the inconsistency of the Conservative party. It was, after all, my predecessor, Michael Portillo, who signed up to the European security and defence identity at the Berlin summit. It is strange that the Conservative party should be so emphatically opposed to an initiative that is designed to strengthen NATO's capability to act in situations where NATO forces could be of use, and to build European capabilities, so that we will be able to get good value for the expenditure of European taxpayers and to contribute in situations where the United States of America and Canada may choose not to be involved.

Mr. Bradley: My right hon. Friend referred to the lost Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Michael Portillo. Will he confirm that it was the last Government who signed up to the Maastricht treaty, which, among many other things, called for the framing of a progressive common defence policy? Will he identify any developments in the past two years since the election, when the Conservatives left office,

or in the past two months that would justify the Opposition's current claim that a common defence policy would undermine NATO?

Mr. Robertson: I felt that this was a day for generosity, which is why I thought that reminding the Opposition of Michael Portillo would be sufficient. It would, I thought, be going too far to remind them of the Maastricht treaty, in which the idea of a common defence policy had its germination.
The fact is that no one else shares the rather ludicrous view that is being taken of anything European, especially when it involves the Europeans doing more about their defence, and building European military capabilities to a point at which they can be useful to us all in the future.

Mr. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that an enhanced European defence identity will strengthen NATO, but that, in the aftermath of the Kosovo crisis, Britain and Her Majesty's Government should be taking a leading role in that new defence identity? Does he also agree that, far from such a new identity costing more, it is important for us to continue to spend defence money more wisely—on, for instance, the strategic heavy lift that that lot opposite failed to fund?

Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out some home truths. We have reshaped our forces in this country, and it must be said that a good many members of all parties in the House agreed with the analysis. We simply wish our European colleagues to spend what they spend wisely. It is a fact that Europe spends nearly two thirds of the total budget of the United States on defence, but achieves only a fraction of that in military capability. That must be dealt with.
European forces must be—as ours will be—readily deployable, flexible in order to meet diverse challenges, and sustainable over long distances and for long periods. That is what the defence initiative is all about.

Mr. James Gray: The Secretary of State will be aware of Mr. Prodi's recent observation that a European army is both the logical next step for Europe, and inevitable. Does he agree with that view, or will he take this opportunity to repudiate it?

Mr. Robertson: Mr. Prodi speaks for himself in talking about a European army. I have heard no other European leaders speak of a single European army.
There will be no relinquishing of national control or deployment of our forces. That is the view not only of this Government—who hold it emphatically—but of the rest of the European Union countries.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State not realise that that answer is entirely inadequate? It is his Government who have been promoting Mr. Prodi.
For decades, Governments of all party political persuasions have supported strengthened European contributions to NATO. What worries us now is the idea of a common defence policy with united armed forces, which would mean that the armed forces of this country would pass out of our control and into the majority control of continental politicians such as Mr. Prodi. Will the


Secretary of State now answer my hon. Friend's question properly, and repudiate once and for all what Mr. Prodi wrongly said?

Mr. Robertson: If I remember rightly, Mr. Prodi was the unanimous choice of all the European Union leaders, just as Mr. Jacques Santer was the choice of the last Administration and unanimously adopted by others. The ability to rewrite history is now becoming an art form in the Conservative party, but they cannot fool all the people all the time.
There is no intention of making defence policy anything other than intergovernmental. National defence policy will remain in the hands of national Governments, and there is no intention of changing that.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: The difference is that we said that Mr. Santer was wrong.
The Secretary of State said earlier that, at St. Malo, the Prime Minister had signed an agreement on a European Union defence capability within or outside NATO, and, at the Cologne summit, had signed up to an autonomous EU defence capability. Does the Secretary of State recognise that an autonomous European defence union will risk alienating the greatest ally of the 20th century—the United States—both politically and militarily, and that to do so would jeopardise the security of both Britain and Europe? Does he accept that NATO must remain the bedrock of European defence and security co-operation?

Mr. Robertson: I welcome also the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench, and I wish him well. I also offer him one piece of advice: before asking that type of question, he would be well-advised to read the conclusions of the Washington summit. Believe it or not, that summit was held in the capital of the United States of America and was subscribed to by the Government of the United States of America. The United States Government believe that our defence initiative—which is embraced by all our European partners—will strengthen European defence, that it will strengthen—not weaken—the alliance, and that it will do well for Europe if, in future, we have to deal with situations in which the United States does not want to be involved.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Would my right hon. Friend take the advice not of the little Englanders who have taken over the Conservative party, but of the distinguished former Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—who, last week, in the House's debate on Kosovo, said that one of the most glaring lessons of the past 10 years' experience of the Balkans was the need for a more effective European common defence and foreign policy?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is usually in so much trouble that I am loth to make matters worse for him by praising him, but, on that point, he has reality on his side. The European defence initiative—which has been endorsed by the Washington summit and by the Cologne European Union summit—is designed to supplement, not to duplicate NATO assets, to strengthen NATO, and to strengthen European capabilities—at a time when one should have thought that the desirability of that objective was self-evident.

Oral Answers to Questions — Balkans (British Forces)

Mr. Simon Hughes: What commitment of British forces he plans that the UK should make to the NATO or UN forces in the Balkans in the next six months. [86533]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson: ): The United Kingdom is committed to supporting NATO operations in the Balkans. At the peak, we shall be deploying up to 13,000 ground troops as part of KFOR, with up to 7,000 more remaining ready in the UK for deployment in the region if needed. Additionally, 4,500 personnel are serving with SFOR in Bosnia. As of today, 900 Royal Navy personnel and 1,800 Royal Air Force personnel are also deployed in support of operations in the Balkans. The size of those contributions will be kept under review.

Mr. Hughes: It is clear that Britain is playing the pre-eminent role in the peacekeeping force in the Balkans—for which we should be grateful not only to the Government, but to our armed forces. Will the Secretary of State confirm—as I asked him to do some weeks ago—that it is very clear to all our troops that they are part of one integrated force which is in Kosovo to ensure that Kosovo remains one integrated territory, and that Kosovo will not be partitioned among different forces?
About three weeks ago, the International Labour Organisation treaty on child labour—which included undertakings by the British Government—was signed. What implications will that treaty have for armed forces personal under 18, who now may not be eligible to serve in front-line positions?

Mr. Robertson: All the understandings and agreements have been driving precisely at achieving the objective, which the hon. Gentleman shares, of one unified force for one Kosovo: we are not interested in the creation of a new Berlin wall in any other part of the European continent. The Russians' acceptance of one unified command inside Kosovo, under General Mike Jackson of KFOR, underlines that clear line of command.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the ILO child labour statement. The statement will have no implications for British armed forces. It is to do with compulsory service in armed forces, not with volunteers—of whom our armed forces are composed.

Maria Eagle: Given the sustained progress that we have seen in implementing the Dayton accords in Bosnia, is now the time to consider switching some of our troops from that province towards Kosovo, where their services are more clearly needed?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we have a considerable commitment to SFOR in Bosnia, and that the record there is extremely good. The circumstances may well lead to some force reconfiguration. We will be looking to reduce our numbers in Bosnia, and I have made that clear on a number of occasions to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. The commitments that we have taken on in Kosovo—which are serious and demanding—require us to ensure that all of our commitments are matched with our capabilities.

Mr. Tom King: In giving those sombre figures, the Secretary of State has announced, effectively,


something close to a commitment similar to that in Northern Ireland. The implications of a further unaccompanied tour obligation for our armed forces are profound for them, and for their families. If we are to sustain this commitment, and if we are to ensure that the implications for families do not have a serious impact on recruitment, we must look carefully at all the implications of this major new undertaking.

Mr. Robertson: I always listen with great care to the right hon. Gentleman, who held the position that I hold now. He knows the weighty responsibilities that are involved, especially in deploying troops. He was in a similar position to me now when he deployed some 52,000 troops to the Gulf during the conflict in that area. At that time, he—like me now—could not have stood back from our obligation to do the right thing at the right time. He and I must keep uppermost in our minds the reality of what the strain means for the individuals who are on the front lines in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo and the other parts of the world where we send them. We have an obligation to think of their families, especially at this time. There will be a great deal of satisfaction and relief that so much has been achieved so far. However, it is not over, and there are still huge risks and dangers in Kosovo for those involved in mine clearance, boobytrap clearance and some other troublesome elements.
Our recruitment figures are up dramatically, but retention figures continue to give us cause for concern. We will continue to look at the demands on our forces and on their families with great care, and we will make sure that that is high on our list of priorities.

Mr. Martin Bell: Since the Government came to office concerned about the problems of overstretch in the armed forces—quite rightly—will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to monitor in the months ahead the rising divorce rate among serving soldiers, as that is the best indicator of overstretch there is?

Mr. Robertson: We are looking carefully and seriously at the problems affecting families during long-term commitments overseas. Clearly, the divorce rate is one of the symptoms of what can be a growing problem. We established a service families task force last year, which came out of the strategic defence review and the people policy that was part of that. We are looking at all the factors that we believe are impacting on families and, therefore, on retention in the armed forces.
This is an opportunity for the House to say a word of real gratitude to the families of our service personnel, some of whom have been without their loved ones for considerable periods of time as our forces have set out to confront an unpardonable evil in our continent. Today, they can have satisfaction that it has been a job well done.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Following the highly pertinent question from the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), will the Secretary of State tell us which is the most likely—that the commitment will last for my lifetime, for my right hon. Friend's lifetime or for that of the youngest among us?

Mr. Robertson: It may last a long time and we will have to be there for however long it takes. That is the

reality that we undertook when we got involved. On the other hand, there are signs, such as the agreement with the KLA last night and the speed with which the Serb forces left Kosovo, that suggest that we might be able to reach an accommodation between the different elements, as indeed we have been able to do remarkably well in Bosnia. We will hope for the best, as ever, but prepare for the worst. My hon. Friend might have offered a word of apology on this subject.

Mr. kin Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State is right to talk about the professionalism of our armed forces, for which the House is always grateful. We owe a debt of gratitude also to the families of our service personnel, who have a very special relationship with us because of what their loved ones are expected to do on behalf of the state. Does he accept that politicians have a duty to do as much as possible to ensure that those families are not undermined in any way by circumstances brought about by policy?
The extra deployments into Kosovo mean that we must carefully consider the pressure being put on service personnel and their families, above and beyond what was expected in the strategic defence review: for example, a parachute battalion finds itself short of men when it is called to deploy; Territorial Army para units are in difficulties because they, too, lack the personnel to make up the difference; TA engineer units serving in Kosovo know full well that their numbers will be cut as and when the SDR breaks upon them; and there are extra pressures in Northern Ireland that the Government may not have expected.
The Government should make absolutely clear their foreign policy—ethical foreign policy, as they call it—objectives, especially given the Blair doctrine of a new world order, which could lead to our armed forces being deployed in many new circumstances. Otherwise, we will have greater and greater problems in recruitment and retention.

Mr. Robertson: No doubt, when the hon. Gentleman gets into the reading for his brief, he will read the strategic defence review and our analysis of foreign policy and will take note of the outcome and the recommendations, which are being implemented even as we speak. We set out to deal with the overstretch and the shortfall in manning that we inherited. That is why the Regular Army is to be increased in strength, especially in its specialist arms, by an extra 300, and why we proposed and are implementing a sixth deployable brigade, which will help to get the tour intervals back to the length that was always intended.
Of course there will be short-term penalties to pay, and I am more aware of them than most, as I have responsibility. We searchingly examine all the time what we are doing to implement the review, which we believe is vital, and how best to tackle the problem of recruitment and retention, which is hardly confined to this Government; indeed, we have made considerable progress in recruitment, which is up dramatically on last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — Royal Hospital, Haslar

Mr. Peter Viggers: How many representations he has received on the future of the Royal hospital, Haslar. [86535]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): Since 14 December 1998, my Department has received about 500 representations on the future of the Royal hospital, Haslar. That figure includes letters and petitions from hon. Members and members of the public. Together with my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, I have also had a meeting on the subject with the hon. Gentleman, as well as with my hon. Friend Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), plus local representatives.

Mr. Viggers: But I wonder whether the Minister is being well advised on this subject. Members of the defence medical services will of course do their duty, but I would not be doing mine if I did not point out that there is a widespread and profound view in those services that the closure of the last remaining military hospital will result in a loss of skilled personnel that will take a decade or more to reverse. He has said that there is no plan to review that decision, but the only way ahead for civilian and military personnel in the Gosport peninsula is a reversal of that decision. The failure to review the decision is looking less like courageous determination and more like obstinacy.

Mr. Henderson: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the provision of medical services, for both the civilian and military population in Gosport, and that of those who joined him in making representations to the Department. I am sure that he will also recognise that among those people and the medical staff at Haslar there was a widespread recognition that matters could not continue as they had in the past. The facilities that were necessary to advance medicine for the military and civilian sides were not in place and we were not able to recruit the right number of energetic young people to medical provision in the services. That was one of the reasons why the review that we announced recently included the opening of a new centre for defence medicine.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that seven NHS trusts have now been shortlisted to tender for the new centre for defence medicine. They are all strong candidates and will be invited to make the formal tenders in a few weeks' time, with a decision being made in December. The trusts are the Lothian University Hospital trust, Edinburgh; North Bristol NHS trust; Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital NHS trust; Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals; Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust; the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS trust; and University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust.

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that this is a specific question.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Given the appalling neglect under the previous Government of the defence medical services, and given the £140 million extra expenditure planned for four years, does my hon. Friend agree that the defence medical services, including those at Plymouth Derriford hospital, are safe only in the hands of a Labour Government?

Mr. Henderson: I believe that there needs to be a hard look at how we can make better medical provision for our military personnel. That is why that additional resource has been earmarked for that investment in the years ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions — Royal Ordnance, Bishopton

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What recent representations he has received concerning the present circumstances and future prospects of Royal Ordnance, Bishopton. [86536]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): In addition to the representations concerning Royal Ordnance, Bishopton made personally by my hon. Friend and the recent inquiry by the Defence Select Committee, Ministers have answered questions in this House and received letters from hon. Members, representatives of the trade unions and members of the public, including employees of Royal Ordnance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met a delegation from the trade unions at RO Bishopton earlier this year, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement met a similar delegation last year.

Dr. Godman: Might I offer my compliments to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for the positive response that they have made to the Defence Committee's report on the Royal Ordnance plans? There is now a real prospect of a constructive and stable relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the RO and the possibility of a link with Rheinmetall of Germany. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time is now right for British Aerospace to be equally positive in its response by, among other things, reprieving RO Bishopton?

Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his representations during the discussions on the issue. We are pleased that discussions between MOD officials and RO management on the company's future prospects are nearing completion. We are considering the possibility of a long-term strategic partnering arrangement, which would see the company becoming the preferred MOD supplier for certain types of ammunition. Recommendations on that are expected to come before Ministers shortly.

Mr. Robert Key: In joining in congratulating our forces on their professionalism in Kosovo and in thanking their families, I would add the 400,000 individuals employed in the defence industries in this country and the scientific and industrial civil servants who have supported our forces in the background. However, it is a bit hollow for the work force at Bishopton to hear that. Now that the Government have decided that they will no longer buy British ammunition for British forces, will war stocks of ammunition be adjusted upwards to reflect the inevitable reduction in security of supply?

Mr. Spellar: That is not a new policy. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the policy of previous Administrations.
The more constructive part of the hon. Gentleman's question had to do with the policy on war stocks. Our policy is to maintain ammunition war stocks at a level commensurate with short-warning conflict. In the event of conflict on a larger scale, there should be sufficient warning time to procure ammunition from domestic or overseas sources or manufacturers. Equally significantly,


ammunition stockpile holdings are under review following the strategic defence review. Obviously, any lessons from recent conflicts will be incorporated into that study.

Oral Answers to Questions — Kosovo

Ms Rachel Squire: If he will make a statement on the current security situation in Kosovo. [86541]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): As at 18 June, some 18,000 KFOR troops had deployed to Kosovo. KFOR has been successful in maintaining a large measure of stability in very difficult circumstances.

Ms Squire: Will my right hon. Friend join me in warmly welcoming the agreement reached with the Kosovo Liberation Army on disarmament, and in paying tribute to all involved? Does he agree that that is a very significant step towards creating a peaceful and stable Kosovo, and that a vital part of any peace-building process is enforcement in a consistent and even-handed manner for all groups and individuals threatening violence? Does he further agree that, once again, the British armed forces have surpassed themselves and demonstrated why they have an international reputation for dealing evenly and justly with all those involved in a potential conflict?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right, and her words will be heard with great respect, including in theatre. The necessity to act even-handedly and impartially is absolutely critical if Kosovo is not to suffer another exodus, which might be smaller but would be equally sad. General Sir Mike Jackson made it absolutely clear on his first day in Kosovo that he would act with firmness and determination, but even-handedly. I believe that that message is getting through.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Some 13,000 British troops will be used to maintain the security of Kosovo. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that will mean that almost 90 per cent. of land command personnel will either be committed to operations, or warned to deploy on operations? In those circumstances, what will the right hon. Gentleman do about overstretch and about the retention of personnel? Such a large number of Army personnel committed to unaccompanied operations overseas means that we will be losing troops because their families will not stand for it.

Mr. Robertson: In many ways, I have answered that question already. I have underlined how important families are. I hold strongly in my mind the principle "recruit a soldier, retain a family", as does my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. At the moment, the total number of British troops committed to Kosovo is 13,000, and I expect a significant reduction after about six months.

Oral Answers to Questions — Global Nuclear Disarmament

Dr. Doug Naysmith: What steps his Department is taking to promote global nuclear disarmament. [86543]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): In the strategic defence review and since, we have set out a wide range of measures contributing to our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. We will continue to promote international peace and security and to reduce the need for any reliance on nuclear deterrence.

Dr. Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, in maintaining strong defence while promoting nuclear disarmament, we can justly claim to have led by example? Does he also agree that by maintaining nuclear deterrence as we promised we have kept our promises, as no more warheads are deployed on Trident than were deployed on Polaris when it first entered service?
Finally, does he agree that the improved relationship between Russia and the west that was on display at the weekend offers further opportunities for talks on nuclear disarmament?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. We are deploying no more warheads on Trident than there were on Polaris when it entered service. He is also right about the need for in-depth dealings with the Russians. I hope that the G8 meeting at Cologne will be a starting point for that. Last week I met a delegation from the Duma, who I believe are here as your guests, Madam Speaker. That is an enlightened move, if I may say so. Major General Stolyarov, the deputy chairman of the Duma's foreign affairs committee, listened carefully as I outlined the unconditional measures that we had taken on nuclear weapons and suggested that the Russian Duma might like to follow that example and ratify the START 2 treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Investment Policies

Mr. Simon Hughes: What discussions the Church Commissioners have with international Christian and other bodies about the investment policies of the Church of England. [86565]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners have recently held informal discussions with the New Zealand Anglican Church regarding the Church of England's investment policies, as well as with the Victoria Synod of the Uniting Church of Australia.

Mr. Hughes: Given that the Anglican Church in this country is part of the worldwide Church, will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Church Commissioners that they should have a proper procedure for taking the opinion of the World Council of Churches and other bodies on all matters that relate to investment overseas, so that they have an ethical investment policy that is acceptable to the worldwide Church, not just to the UK Church? In the year when we hope to have freedom


of information legislation, will we be able to see who is consulted and have their advice to the Church Commissioners published?

Mr. Bell: The commissioners are members of the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility, the Westminster ethical policy forum, the Institute of Business Ethics and the UK Social Investment Forum. They also meet regularly with Church investor groups. The hon. Gentleman would like to extend that consultation to foreign Churches that are part of the Church of England. We shall take that into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — Church Repairs (VAT)

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations the Church Commissioners have made on the charging of VAT on church repairs. [86567]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The General Synod, with the full support of the commissioners, has consistently argued that VAT should not be charged, but so far without success. It is estimated that a minimum of £15 million per annum is spent on VAT on repairs to that significant part of the nation's heritage.

Miss McIntosh: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman might confirm that he has received representations from me and from my noble Friend Baroness Platt of Writtle asking that once the Council of Ministers has agreed that VAT may be charged at zero rate or at a reduced rate on labour-intensive industries, the hon. Gentleman and the other Church Commissioners will argue forcefully that the Government should apply for that rate to be applied to church repairs.

Mr. Bell: I can confirm that we received those communications. The proposed European directive is a draft that might not pass into law. It relates to labour-intensive services such as hairdressing and hotels, for which the EU may permit a lower rate of VAT. The Church is humble in its origins and beliefs; it does not mind being associated with hairdressers and hotels if that permits a lower rate of VAT. However, we are disappointed by the rejection of any alleviation of that major burden on church-goers in the recent consultation paper on the taxation of charities.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does that £15 million to which my hon. Friend referred relate just to the Church of England? Would the figure not be larger if it included all churches, which are also part of our heritage and also have to pay VAT on repairs? The Churches are hard pressed for money. If we want to preserve those parts of our heritage, which also play an important part in our national life, we need to attend to the problem.

Mr. Bell: The recent Churches, needs survey, commissioned jointly by English Heritage and the Council for the Care of Churches, shows that the annual cost at 1998 prices of major repairs to Church of England

churches was approximately £123.4 million, including fees and VAT. Those figures relate solely to major repairs and exclude routine maintenance and running costs. My hon. Friend's point is well made. We are working with the Treasury on the issue, but so far we have had no success.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the concession sought by the Anglican Church is needed by other faith groups and denominations? Refurbishment work is required quinquennially in the Church of England. Much of the money for that is raised not only by church-goers but by others in the community who deserve thanks. As most of the work is labour intensive, and with the extra 30 or 40 per cent. tax and national insurance, as well as VAT, nearly half the cost of repairs goes to the Government, not to the Churches.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. One of our major concerns is that the Church of England pays more in VAT than it receives in grants from English Heritage. New churches are zero-rated for VAT, but buildings that are an important part of our national heritage incur 17.5 per cent. VAT. In the past, the Synod has recommended 5 per cent. VAT and it will debate the issue again in July.

Oral Answers to Questions — Clergy Pay

Mr. Ben Chapman: What plans the commissioners have to review clergy pay. [86568]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The national average stipend for incumbents and clergy of incumbent status as at July 1998 was £15,210. In addition, clergy also receive free housing, with an estimated value of £7,820 per annum and a non-contributory pension, which costs £3,010 per minister per annum. A review of clergy stipends has recently been announced and will report its findings next year.

Mr. Chapman: Can my hon. Friend say whether plans to put the clergy's conditions of service on a more temporal or secular basis could include contracts of employment, tribunal rights and union recognition, which are increasingly available to others in our society?

Mr. Bell: I should draw the House's attention to the fact that the Archbishops Council has taken on the commissioners' powers and responsibilities as the central stipends authority and has recently agreed terms of reference for a review of clergy stipends. Among other things, it will examine the content of the clergy remuneration package, including stipend, housing and non-contributory pension; compare the remuneration of clergy with that of other groups; and conduct a large-scale survey of the financial circumstances of the clergy. I will make a personal representation to ensure that my hon. Friend's points are considered in the study.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — National Audit Office

Mr. John Bercow: What measures he will take to promote the accountancy skills of NAO auditors. [86569]

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The staff of the National Audit Office already have high accountancy skills. The office encourages all staff to maintain and enhance them through continuous professional development, an integrated and comprehensive technical audit training programme and secondment opportunities to private firms. The office's trainee auditors undertake the qualification of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and there is also direct training support for staff undertaking other professional accountancy qualifications, such as that of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.

Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that informative response. What proportion of auditors in the National Audit Office are, respectively, chartered and certified accountants? Are the office's services regularly subjected to market testing, and is he happy with the results of any such testing?

Mr. Sheldon: I do not have the exact figures but I know that staff achieve considerable successes in their examinations. I have presented prizes, and it is a pleasure to see the high marks—some of the highest available—

that some staff achieve. It is an important matter that concerns both the office and the Public Accounts Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Spending (Chichester)

Mr. Robert Key: If he will list by category expenditure by the Church Commissioners in the last three financial years on (a) the diocese of Chichester and (b) the Dean and Chapter of Chichester; and if he will make a statement. [86571]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Diocese of Chichester received £170,000 per annum in 1996 and 1997 and £.163,000 in 1998 in respect of stipend support from the Church Commissioners, mainly in the form of statutory payments of guaranteed annuities and other grants paid direct to clergy.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that those figures are modest and that unwarranted attacks on alleged mis-spending by clergy of the Church of England and absurd claims by hon. Members that bishops live extravagant life styles do nothing to assist the Church and merely show that people who indulge in such ridiculous and pathetic attacks know nothing about the Church of England?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I could not put it better myself.

Kosovo and G8 Summit

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Kosovo and the G8 summit in Cologne. Copies of the documents issued at the summit are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Ninety days after our military action began, I can tell the House that all Serb forces have withdrawn from Kosovo. This is a huge achievement, and many observers in this country and in this House were sceptical that it would ever be achieved. However, NATO's unity, the determination to prevail and the professionalism of our forces under General Sir Mike Jackson have proved them wrong. Milosevic's forces are out, our forces are in and soon the refugees will go home. Some are already returning, despite the risks. I met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the margins of the summit, and the organised return of the refugees will begin on 1 July.
Kosovo was discussed extensively at the G8 summit and two important advances were tied down during the weekend. First, agreement was reached on Russian participation in KFOR. Russia will supply up to 3,600 troops for a force that is planned to reach some 50,000. They will have areas of operation in three different sectors rather than being concentrated in one area. Russia will provide a deputy to the commander in each sector where they are present and Russian troops will be integrated into the unified force with command-and-control arrangements very similar to those for Russian troops in the NATO-led forces in Bosnia.
Secondly, late last night, the Kosovo Liberation Army signed an undertaking with the KFOR Commander General Mike Jackson to hand in its weapons and to demilitarise its organisation. I want to pay tribute to John Reith, the British NATO General in charge of the NATO force in Albania, who conducted these difficult and complex negotiations so well. The KLA have agreed that, within seven days, their forces will gather in assembly areas. Within 30 days, all prohibited weapons—with the exception of automatic small arms—will be handed in. Automatic small arms will be handed in in phases over 90 days, after which time the assembly areas will come under the full control of the KFOR commander and all KLA members have to cease wearing their uniforms and insignia. The KLA will then be de-militarised.
The progress made in the few days since Milosevic finally caved in has been extraordinary: on the withdrawal of Serb forces, on the deployment of ours, on the role of the Russians, and now on the agreement to demilitarise the KLA. This is a remarkable story, and Britain and British forces can be very proud of their role in it.
Another far worse story is unfolding as the true horrors that Kosovo has lived through come to light. I warned the House that we would be shocked by what we found when we finally entered Kosovo, and so it has proved: torture chambers, organised rape, the butchering of children—massacre, after massacre, after massacre. If ever justification were needed for the military campaign, the whole world has seen it now. The war crimes investigators have a massive task before them.
Let no one think that Serbia can regain a place among civilised nations while it is led by an indicted war criminal. I say this to the Serb people: "The world cannot

help you rebuild your country while Milosevic is at its head. Nor will the world understand, as the full extent of these atrocities is revealed, if you just turn a blind eye to the truth and pretend that it is nothing to do with you. This is your country, and this evil was carried out by your soldiers and by your leaders."
To the rest of the region, it is clear from the G8 summit that the international community will stand by the promises we made to them. The countries of the region stood with us, without compromise, during this conflict. We owe them a debt. We made a pledge to help rebuild the region and we will stand by that pledge. We want to rebuild the Balkans and to integrate the countries one with another and with the rest of Europe. We cannot afford another conflict like this one: we must invest now for peace in Kosovo, and in the Balkans as a whole. At the G8, we agreed that there should be a Balkans summit in the next few months, at which we and the leaders of the democratic countries of south-east Europe would plan the way ahead for the region and mobilise the necessary support.
I also met President Yeltsin and the new Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Stephashin, at the summit. President Yeltsin and I agreed to put our recent difficulties behind us and, in his words, make our relations stronger together. Russia played a vital part in the successful resolution of this conflict and I am sure that this House will join me in thanking Russia's leaders for the part that they played.
Events in Kosovo inevitably dominated the coverage. However, the summit at Cologne covered a range of other issues that are of huge political and economic significance for all our countries—issues including the environment, non-proliferation, the millennium bug and the killer diseases of AIDS and malaria. However, for me, most important of all was the progress that we were able to announce on third world debt.
Britain has long been in the forefront of the international effort to release the poorest countries of the world from the chains of massive debt. At Birmingham last year, we pledged to support the speedy extension of debt relief to more countries. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development have worked hard with Church leaders, Jubilee 2000, Oxfam, Comic Relief and others to secure the most generous package possible. The measures that leaders adopted in Cologne mark a significant step forward. Those measures will reduce the debt of the world's poorest countries by an extra $70 billion, on top of further traditional debt relief of $30 billion; and will help more countries to qualify for highly indebted poorest countries—HIPC—debt relief, by making the debt sustainability criteria more generous.
We also took steps to ensure that the new HIPC scheme will deliver debt relief more quickly. We will ensure that countries feel the full benefits of debt relief after a maximum of just three years, rather than six as now. We have agreed that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should take steps to ensure that at least three quarters of eligible countries get the benefits of debt relief by the end of next year; and, in principle, we agreed a new partnership—public-private—in the fight against poverty in the developing world by inviting the private sector to contribute voluntarily to the new millennium fund.
I would like to see us go further still on debt; it is an issue whose time has come. I will personally do whatever I can to make that happen. However, the impact of the agreement that we reached this weekend should not be underestimated: more than two thirds of the official debt owed by the world's poorest countries will now be completely written off.
At the summit, most countries—particularly Japan—were able to report improved economic prospects for the year ahead. However, the lessons of last year's financial crisis must be properly learned. At the summit, we were able to announce a six-point plan for strengthening the international financial system—including measures to increase the effectiveness of the IMF and the other international financial institutions; proposals to promote transparency and best practice, with the IMF monitoring compliance with new codes and standards; and a new framework for involving the private sector in crisis prevention and management. Many of those proposals reflect ideas that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have put forward during the past year. Once fully implemented, they will transform the rules of the game in the global financial markets. Taken together, I have no doubt that they will greatly strengthen the efficiency and robustness of the international financial system.
Those reforms will need to be accompanied by a continuing worldwide effort to reduce barriers to trade. The millennium trade round to be launched at this year's World Trade Organization Ministerial in Seattle represents a key opportunity. At Cologne, we agreed that the new round should be broad based and ambitious. It must also deliver substantial benefits for the developing world.
We also committed ourselves to a science-based, rules-based approach in dealing with the impact of biotechnology. As part of a joint initiative including the UK, the G8 agreed to ask Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development experts to study the issues raised by recent developments in biotechnology and other aspects of food safety. We need to look at whether the current regulatory and institutional framework can be strengthened; next year's summit will return to that.
Finally, I was pleased that we were able to spend some time at the summit on the key domestic policy challenge of our time: how to equip all our citizens to survive and prosper in the knowledge-based economy of the future. Education and lifelong learning are the passport to success in today's global economy. They are also the foundations of a prosperous and more just society. So I was delighted that the other G8 leaders agreed to support the idea of a G8 charter on aims and ambitions for lifelong learning to underline our strong personal commitment to raising educational standards, not just in our own countries but across the globe.
The summit in Cologne was attended by eight Heads of Government, but its significance was of much wider international importance. It was a meeting at which we were able to declare at last that the barbaric regime in Kosovo was at an end and that international peacekeepers were in place. It sent a message to the world that the forces of democracy and freedom have the will to face down tyranny. It was a meeting at which important opportunities were taken to reaffirm, in the aftermath of Kosovo, our close relationship with Russia. It was also a meeting at which the richest countries of the world focused their attention on, and offered solutions to,

debt problems in the poorest countries of the world. In those crucial respects, it was both a successful and a significant summit.

Mr. William Hague: There are many things in the communiqué that we welcome: the commitment to enhancing world trade through the World Trade Organisation, the statement on Russia's debt repayment, the emphasis on sustainable development, and the promotion of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament.
We on the Opposition Benches particularly welcome the statement on international debt, which builds on the work of the Trinidad terms that were agreed under the previous Government. Like the Prime Minister, we want further progress. We pay tribute to the voluntary organisations that have worked so hard to propose solutions. We must all go on working with them.
I join the Prime Minister in praising the work of NATO in Kosovo over the past few days and in congratulating all involved. The House will particularly want to pay tribute to the roles played by General Mike Jackson and General John Reith and their troops.
I have four sets of questions on Kosovo. First, we welcome the Helsinki agreement and the assurance that Russian forces will not be concentrated in one particular sector. Have we been assured also that there will be no repeat of unilateral Russian activity, such as that at Pristina airport?
Secondly, on the KLA and Serb civilians in Kosovo, we witnessed on the television extraordinary scenes over the weekend of looting and burning of Serb homes. To what extent can NATO provide guarantees on the security of Serb residents in Kosovo? We welcome the agreement on the demilitarisation of the KLA. Will NATO ensure that that agreement is enforced uniformly on the ground?
Thirdly, does the Prime Minister agree that, if we are to expect Kosovar Albanians not to take the law into their own hands, we must give them confidence in the international legal system, which means demonstrating that we are doing our utmost to bring to justice those who are responsible for massacres, rapes, torture chambers, concentration camps and other horrific crimes? Will the Prime Minister comment on reports that up to 3,000 political prisoners have been abducted across the Kosovo border?
Fourthly, on aid, what estimate have the Government made of the likely long-term cost of reconstruction? The Prime Minister has rightly ruled out reconstruction aid for Serbia while an indicted war criminal remains in charge there. Will he confirm that that is the view of the G8 as a whole? What implications does that have for Montenegro?
On wider issues discussed by G8 leaders, the summit agreed to set up two studies on genetically modified food—or "recent developments in biotechnology", as the Prime Minister preferred to call it. Why did it take France and Germany to suggest such studies? Why have not our Government been suggesting them? Does the Prime Minister agree with a House of Lords Select Committee that European Union member states must have the right to opt out of growing certain GM crops for domestic or environmental reasons? Is it not imperative that the Government announce an immediate moratorium on the commercial release of GM crops—at least until the


research in Britain and elsewhere has been evaluated? The Prime Minister does not need to travel to Cologne to take action on GM crops; he can just adopt the Bill introduced in another place last week by my noble Friend Baroness Miller.
The Prime Minister used a series of interviews at the summit to sow confusion about his own policy on the European single currency. Perhaps he can now clear up the confusion. Both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have on numerous occasions set out their five economic tests for joining the single currency. Yesterday, at the Cologne summit, the Prime Minister appeared to add a sixth—he said that we had to
have the right reform process under way in Europe".
Are there five tests, or six tests, or is the ability to hang on to his policy while pretending to retreat from it for him the only test?
The Prime Minister also caused great confusion at Cologne when he said that it would be daft to rush for early entry to the euro. If it is daft—if he now really believes what he said yesterday about that, although admittedly it was a full 24 hours ago—does he agree that it is daft to go on asking taxpayers and businesses to spend millions of pounds on the national handover plan? And if it is daft to rush into a single currency, is it not the daftest thing of all for the Government to be committed to abolishing the pound in principle? So, will he now withdraw that commitment to join in principle? If he does not, all his weasel words simply show that he is still determined to abolish the pound, but does not have the courage to say so.
The Chancellor told the CBI annual dinner that the Government intended to
make a decision early in the next Parliament
if they won the election. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor on joining early in the next Parliament? Does he believe in that, or something different, or both, or nothing?
If the Prime Minister really wants to join the single currency, is it not time that he had the courage to say why, and that, in European Union affairs, he started to fight for what he actually believes in rather than believing in, and fighting for, nothing?

The Prime Minister: I will deal with the G8 points first. In relation to NATO and the British troops, of course I agree that British troops have done tremendous work in Kosovo. It is also right to point out that they face continual dangers on the ground the entire time. They and all the NATO troops are embarked on a very dangerous business.
In respect of unilateral action by Russia, I believe that we are past that time now. I think that it was self-evident at the G8 summit that there was a great desire on both sides for a coming together and a putting of the difficulties of the past few weeks behind us. The warmth of President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Stephashin towards the other G8 members was very eloquent, and told its own story.
Secondly, in relation to Serb homes and what security we can provide, we should of course make it clear, as we have—General Jackson did so again today—that the security that we offer is to people regardless of ethnic

grouping. That is essential. It will be difficult. We are dealing with a highly explosive situation, where there will be very deep feelings on all sides. That is natural when thousands of people have been butchered in ethnic cleansing. However, I am pleased that, in the past few days, several leaders, including Church and political leaders, have made calls for Serbs to stay. I do not think that anyone who knows British troops could have any doubt that they will be even handed in their approach. Some evidence of that has already been given, and the KLA has given the undertaking on demilitarisation.
We will pursue the war criminals. We have heard reports of political prisoners being abducted, but I cannot confirm those reports.
In respect of the cost, it is simply too early to say. There is no way that we would agree to aid for reconstruction in Serbia while Milosevic remains. I am not in a position to speak for all members of the international community, but I would be very surprised if any or many disagreed with that position. Montenegro is a different proposition altogether. I pay tribute again to Montenegro and to President Djukanovic for the solid way in which it has stood for the true interests of the region.
I now come to the issues of biotechnology and food safety, on which the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong, as were parts of the press. The suggestion that studies should be done came from, among other countries, Britain. What France was proposing was that we set up a separate international regulatory body. There may be merit in that, but that was not what the G8 finally agreed.
In respect of GM foods generally, those of us who know the ins and outs of the subject know the sheer and total hypocrisy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, I am not saying that the Leader of the Opposition does not know the ins and outs of it; he does, which makes his position all the worse, because those of us, including him, who know the ins and outs of this know that only four GM foods were ever licensed for sale in Britain, and every one by a Tory Government. All we have done with the regulatory system is tighten it, not weaken it. It is this Government who have broadened the base of scientific evidence. However, to end up banning altogether would not be sensible. We should proceed on the basis of science and evidence. That is the sensible thing to do, and it is what the previous Conservative Government did when they had the responsibility of office, as opposed to the irresponsibility of opposition.
With reference to Europe, I was wondering when we would get some passion. The Conservative party is the single-issue party, and Europe is its obsession. I said that two propositions were daft. Daft proposition No. 1 is to join the euro, regardless of the economic conditions. Daft proposition No. 2 is the one that the right hon. Gentleman espouses, which is to rule out joining for ever, or does he now rule it out for 10 years? [Interruption.] We are not quite sure, are we? That is equally daft. We should join, provided the economic conditions are met.
As for the notion that we have for the first time raised the issue of economic reform in Europe, that goes back to the Chancellor's statement in October 1997. The right hon. Gentleman will see that it was raised there, and in my statement in February 1999 on the changeover plan. The difference is that, if we are constructive in Europe and play a part in Europe, we have some chance of getting the reform that we need in Europe.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that we should rule out and cancel the changeover plan, that would mean that Britain could never join the euro, even if it wished to do so. That is a policy born of dogma and ideology. He has sold his pass to the Euro-sceptics in his party. They run the show now, and I say to him, "You will rue the day." I gather that the Conservative party is not joining other Conservative parties in the European Parliament. It has decided that it will reject the European People's party, the grouping in the European Parliament. That is right, as I understand it.

Mr. Hague: Answer the question.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman tells me to answer the question, but I cannot answer that question. I can tell him what is in the country's interest. If we want to get anything through the European Parliament, it is in the country's interest that we should work with others. If his party is so extreme that it cannot work even with other Conservative parties in Europe, that is a sign of how extreme his Government would be, in the unlikely event that he ever formed one.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is clear that the summit in Cologne was extremely successful, but does the Prime Minister accept that its success will be measured in future by the achievements after the summit, rather than by the sincerity of the commitments made in Cologne? That applies particularly to war crimes and debt relief, to which he rightly attaches such importance.
The statement is silent on the matter of humanitarian assistance to the people of Serbia. Does that mean that humanitarian assistance is not barred, so long as it can be regarded as not aiding the survival of the Milosevic regime? The Prime Minister knows that, in Britain especially, people will be anxious to ensure that humanitarian assistance is provided for the people of Serbia, who, through no fault of their own, have found the infrastructure of their country substantially degraded and destroyed.
I welcome the thaw in relations between Russia and the members of the G7. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the extension of further financial assistance is justified economically, or is it being given for political reasons, and as a reward for Russia's reluctant agreement over Kosovo?
Finally, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on their commitment and courage over the past few weeks. May I suggest to him that, with a little more of the same, together we will easily win the campaign for the single currency?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for those compliments.
With respect to what we do now for Serbia, we have always made it clear that there can be no reconstruction aid for Serbia—humanitarian assistance is governed by different rules, obviously—and the international community should make no commitment to the rebuilding of Serbia while Milosevic remains. It is necessary to send that message out to the Serbian people. They should take account of the fact that the whole world—those in Serbia must also have seen enough—has seen the mass graves uncovered and the appalling racial genocide that was

committed in Kosovo. They have some responsibility to make sure that they send a clear message to their own Government and their own regime.
We were working on a programme for assistance to the economic reform process in Russia before the Kosovo conflict ever began, and it is important that those two things are not seen as trade off against one another. It is in our interest that the Russian economic system is stabilised, and the International Monetary Fund programme has to be agreed and accepted before that assistance is given, but relations were immensely warm at the summit and that was one of the positive aspects that came out of it.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend be a little kinder to the leader of the Conservative party, taking into account that I remember sitting on the Opposition Front Bench throughout the 1980s, revelling and rejoicing in European, local and by-election victories and suffering the defeats in the subsequent general elections? See where I have ended up now. Does my right hon. Friend recall that it fell to me, as shadow Foreign Secretary, to introduce debt relief to the policies of a major political party for the first time? I am therefore deeply gratified that a British Labour Government have made such great advances in respect of debt relief.
On Kosovo—taking into account that not only are the G8 and NATO part of the achievements of the past few days, but that Russia, as advocated by certain Members of the House, and the United Nations, as advocated by certain Members of the House, have been brought on board—has my right hon. Friend received any apologies from those whose only policy was that we should pass by on the other side?

The Prime Minister: It is my right hon. Friend's birthday today, and we should congratulate him on that.
I am not quite sure where the Leader of the Opposition will end up, provided that he does not end up here. As for the position of the Conservative party on the euro and Europe, it has decided to make itself a single-issue party in respect of its anti-Europeanism, but it is not in the interests of this country to be in such a position. I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he has done on debt relief, and an important advance has been made by the incoming Government.
On Kosovo, there are those who have opposed the conflict for perfectly honourable reasons, but I believe that there was a moment of pure choice: we either allowed Milosevic to carry on with ethnic cleansing or we stopped him, and the fact that we stopped him is a great tribute to the international community.

Sir Archie Hamilton: The Prime Minister has told the House about the accelerated write-off of debt to the poorest countries. What impact will that have on future flows of aid, both in loan and in grant, to the poorest countries?

The Prime Minister: It will not affect the aid that we give; but it will make a great deal of difference to the position of those countries as they struggle with the huge burden of debt that they carry. I think we are coming to a better and more mature position in the international



community regarding the developing world. We are trying to forgive as much debt as possible. We are giving aid, but we are making sure that, at the same time, we are demanding certain principles of democracy, efficiency and lack of corruption that will make any aid that is given reach the people for whom it is meant.
We have learned a lot from aid policies in the past 20 or 30 years. We have learned the lesson that aid is necessary, but we have also learned to make sure that it does not come with strings in respect of the self-interest of the countries giving the aid, but is tied to proper rules and principles that can ensure that the aid is properly used.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given a revanchist Serbia, and given that President Yeltsin will not be in Russia for ever, for how long does the Prime Minister that think our military commitment is likely to continue in substantial numbers: for my lifetime, for his lifetime, or for the lifetime of the youngest among us?

The Prime Minister: We shall give the military commitment for as long as it takes. In Bosnia, for example, at one point we had more than 11,000 forces; I believe that those are now down to just over 4,000. We have made a substantial commitment to Kosovo, but I believe that, in time, we can reduce that. I think that the chances of getting not what my hon. Friend calls "a revanchist Serbia" but a democratic Serbia will be improved if we send a clear signal to Serbia. It would help if the friends of Serbia—all those who have taken a different view in this conflict—gave it the same message: that, if it embraces the path of democracy, it will find us generous and willing partners.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the Prime Minister accept that there is much non-partisan appreciation of the moral leadership that he has given within NATO against the evil in Kosovo? Will he also accept that, without the daily impact of war and with the crowding in of other legitimate activities, much more moral leadership will continue to be needed if this matter is to be resolved in terms of the objective that he has set for the House and the country, and that the country will continue to look to him to provide some of that moral leadership?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, at the conclusion of this matter, we must not forget the aftermath. As it retreats in the new headlines—it will be there for several weeks, possibly even several months, but there will come a point when it recedes—it is important that we carry out the commitments that we have given to those Balkan countries, particularly the front-line states around Serbia. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. If we renege on that commitment, the chances of our having to repeat this exercise will be greatly increased. Contrariwise, if we carry out that commitment, we shall have the prospect of producing peace in the Balkans for the first time in 100 years.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he should not get too worried about the Johnny-come-latelys and boy scouts in the Opposition in

respect of the euro and the single currency? We should all be aware that they took us into the common market in 1973; it was another Tory Prime Minister who set up the Single European Act and guillotined it through the House, and they all voted for it; then another Tory Prime Minister signed the Maastricht treaty, and they all voted for it again. They now tell us that they will save the pound—they could not even save their own grandmothers. However, if my right hon. Friend did say that it was daft to join the euro—congratulations!

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that supportive comment, but I am afraid that I did not say that. I said that it would be daft to join the single currency regardless of the economic conditions. That is the sensible position. The Tories think that the economic conditions do not matter, which is a foolish position as well. The economic conditions do matter. In order for the single currency to work, the economics must be right. The two daft positions are to go in regardless of the economic conditions and to stay out regardless of the national economic interest. The first is, I think, the position of very few people, but the second of those daft positions is the official position of the Conservative party.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Prime Minister has announced a welcome structuring of the Russian forces into the NATO effort and KFOR, but I am not sure what he meant about the warmth of President Yeltsin's welcome—that may have a mixed blessing. Will he reassure the House that political as well as economic strings are attached to the economic regeneration of, and the debt relief for, Russia? I fear that uncertainty may return to cause us problems.
Secondly, the Prime Minister is right to say that it is daft to join the euro immediately, just as it is daft to set a finite time not to join the euro. The real issue that he raised at Cologne is whether the European economies will reform themselves sufficiently to be able to compete in a world of free trade. The announcement of the millennial round and the WTO talks is crucial to the interests of Britain and the rest of the continent. I fear that British influence has not yet been sufficient to ensure that our continental neighbours reform their economies so as to enable us all to benefit over the next 10 years.

The Prime Minister: In respect of Russia, we have made it clear that we tie this help to economic reform. The scale of the transition process in Russia is enormous. As part of our initiative, we have intensified the political as well as the economic dialogue to ensure that that reform process is carried through and moves forward. The end of the Kosovo conflict—on which Russia and the NATO countries have different perspectives—gives us the chance to put our relations with Russia back on a good footing. That is in the interests of the world. I was grateful to President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Stephashin for making clear their desire to have good and warm relations with us.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the euro—what he said is absolutely right. He is also right about the importance of reform. That is why the summit next year will be important, because, for the first time, the European Union has agreed to hold a summit specifically on the issue of economic reform in Europe. I only wish that the rest of his party would realise that it is in Britain's interest


for the euro to succeed, because, if it fails, Britain will face a fierce economic backlash as a result. If I were, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, to try to renegotiate the entire treaty of Rome as my first act as a leader, I would not have the slightest prospect of getting anything done in Europe. In the end, what is important, as we can see by the decision on droit de suite today, is to engage properly with other European countries. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for—

Madam Speaker: Order. Back-Bench Members should not ask questions from a sedentary position, and Front-Bench Members should not answer them.

The Prime Minister: I know, Madam Speaker. The temptation is to answer them, which is wrong. So I shall move on.
The WTO gives an important push not only to world trade, but to economic reform in the European Union. If the European Union does not reform its trading rules, the WTO negotiations will force it on us.

Mr. David Winnick: Serbian civilians have as much right to live in Kosovo as ethnic Albanians. I hope that everything will be done to reassure them, as my right hon. Friend has said. What can be done to get the people in Serbia to realise the extent of the crimes and atrocities that have been committed? I spoke to the Serbian demonstrators in Whitehall from time to time during the bombing, and it was obvious that they refused to accept what was happening, just as, after 1945, some Germans refused to accept the extent of the terrible crimes that were committed in their name.

The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that there seems also to have been a withdrawal of those forces from outside Downing street, which will help. We must do everything that we can over time to get the message through to the Serb people. The force of the Serb propaganda machine has been reduced subsequent to the conflict. We can get information through via other channels, and we must try to do so as much as possible. One of the reasons for holding the Balkans summit is to try to send that strong message to Serbia. My hon. Friend has, as ever, shown his determination during the conflict to be against racism of any sort. He is absolutely right: it is only when people accept that this has been happening in their name that they will summon up the courage to make sure that they remove the perpetrators of it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: If there is to be any justification for Kosovo's remaining within Serbia, it can only be on the basis that there is a sizeable Serb minority in Kosovo. What steps are being taken to persuade Serbs who have left to return, and to create political structures in which both Serbs and Albanians can have confidence?
There is obviously merit in the statement that, while Milosevic is in power, there can be no aid for Serbia; but if there is evidence of serious malnutrition or, for example, a shortage of medical supplies, no doubt the Prime Minister will want to reconsider. It would be perverse to treat Serbia differently from, say, Iraq in that respect.

The Prime Minister: My response to the latter point is to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is,

of course, right. That is why we are making it clear that it is reconstruction aid that cannot be given to Serbia while Milosevic remains.
As for the Serb minority, some thousands of Serbs have been brought back in the past 48 hours. I think that we can accomplish the return only over time, by giving the Serbs confidence that KFOR will be objective in its handling of the situation. I have no doubt that it will be objective: anyone who knows our forces, and indeed the other forces involved, knows that they will be. I think that, once that becomes established, more of the political and Church leaders will say, "You should remain."
In the short term, there will be dangers and difficulties for the forces, and for people in both ethnic groupings. That is an inevitable consequence of what has happened, but we fought the conflict to root out ethnic discrimination of any sort, and it would be perverse of us now not to do all that we can to encourage the Serb minority to stay, and to live peacefully with their neighbours.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), will my right hon. Friend tell us what policy he has to ensure that Kosovo remains a multi-ethnic state in future? What future does he see for Kosovo, either as an independent state or as part of a federation? What is he doing to ensure that the people of Serbia do not become demonised, and that we try to give them some assistance, separating them from the military regime?
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to examine the environmental impact of the bombing campaign on Serbia and surrounding countries—in particular, the admitted use of depleted uranium by NATO forces and the specific bombardment of chemical factories? That has clearly caused an enormous amount of pollution, which will injure people on both sides of the border.

The Prime Minister: There will be studies of the environmental impact, although many of the claims of environmental damage have already been disproved.
As for the Serbs staying, I cannot really say more than I have already said; but the essence is that we should provide a good civil administration, that it must be clear to the Serb minority that they are being treated fairly and that it will take time for the wounds to heal. They can heal, however. When Kosovo was an autonomous part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, people lived side by side in peace and security. It was Milosevic, when he abandoned autonomy in 1989 and subsequently began policies of Serb nationalism, who created the conflict.
As for the demonisation of the Serb people, we cannot say often enough that our quarrel was not with them, but with the Milosevic regime. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned the demonstrators in Whitehall. It is important for the Serbs to realise that some people refused to accept that those things were happening. They must accept that they happened. We are not saying that all Serbian people were responsible; they were not. Indeed, I have heard stories of Serbs in Kosovo sheltering Albanians. As ever, the picture is not all one way. Nevertheless, the Serbs must accept that this has been done in their name by their leaders, and the process of agitation for change in the regime must continue.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: There have been unconfirmed reports of the abduction of political prisoners—up to 3,000, I believe. I understand that, this morning, a Serbian authority admitted that some prisoners were taken back to Serbia. This is an important matter. Will my right hon. Friend contact the Red Cross and ask if it will demand access to those who have been taken back to Serbia? Will he also ask the interim Kosovo Administration to draw up a list of people who they know were being held by the Serbs in Kosovo, and who may have been taken back?
Some hon. Members will be concentrating our efforts on the matter, as those people—the political elite of Kosovo—are very vulnerable. They have been removed from Kosovo, but are of great interest to politicians throughout the whole of the civilised world.

The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is right. As for his point on the Red Cross, that is already being done. I believe that his point about the civil administration in Kosovo is also right. Although we simply do not know whether the reports are true, they demand urgent investigation. My hon. Friend should know that the practice of some people, like him, of continually taking up this type of issue has had its own impact in this situation. He should be congratulated on that.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the resolution that he and the Government have shown in the past few difficult weeks. Will he answer a more detailed question on looting—which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him about? Yesterday, a patrol of Irish Guards had to stand by while there was extensive and wholly unacceptable looting of Serb houses by Kosovars. Will the right hon. Gentleman check with his colleagues and with General Mike Jackson that the rules of engagement for dealing with looting and other outrages against civil law are sufficiently robust for the very difficult situation that the soldiers are having to deal with?

The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right. Today, Mike Jackson has made it clear that he regrets that the incident occurred, and that the lessons to be learned from it are being considered; there were certain difficulties in dealing with it. Our forces, like other forces, have been dealing with much of the civil disorder in Kosovo; but I suspect that it will take some time to work itself through.
Currently, just under 20,000 members of NATO forces are in Kosovo, but the full force will be 45,000. It will probably take some very clear incidents involving NATO command to bring it home to people—whether they are Serbs or Albanians—that civil disorder will not be tolerated. Meanwhile, it remains a dangerous area for everyone, including our own forces.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development on achieving progress on third world debt. That action is very welcome, and was recommended by the Select Committee on International Development. The Prime Minister said that he feels that we need to go further. Does he agree with the International Development Committee that where we have to go is to a point at which

highly indebted countries—the very poorest countries—use about 20 per cent. of Government revenue to repay debt, thereby allowing them sufficient revenue to be able to help themselves out of the poverty in which they find themselves, and enabling them to invest in crucial spheres such as education and health?

The Prime Minister: That is entirely right, and precisely why we wanted the debt relief programme to go forward. I should make two other points. First, we are trying to ensure that the aid we give is targeted on areas, such as education and health, that are very important for building those countries' long-term future.
The second issue—which was raised in the communiqué and which we discussed at the summit—is the need for better post-conflict resolution. One of the reasons why those areas, particularly in Africa, are suffering so badly is that, although servicing debt relief is one problem, servicing conflict is another.

Ann Clwyd: I too am a member of the International Development Committee. May I say how pleased I am that it is a Labour Government who have pushed the debt relief issue so hard among the G7? I am particularly proud of that because, although the issue has been talked about for a very long time, only now are we beginning to achieve real progress on it.
Will the Prime Minister use his influence among the world's financial institutions to address the issue of the rigidity of their structural adjustment programmes? Very often, the rigidity of those institutions' demands cause poor countries that are trying to service their debts to cut the very health, education and other programmes that we believe in so strongly.
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend about the Tories being negative in Europe. They have always stood out like a sore thumb in Europe. When I was elected in 1979, it was not a question of the Tories choosing a political group—none of the political groups in the European Parliament wanted the Tories, because they were thought to be too extreme and too right wing. I suspect that the same may be true now—nobody really wants them.

The Prime Minister: Unfortunately, they are a lot worse now.
On debt relief, we have taken a big step forward. I know from conversations with debt relief campaigners that there are people who say that we have not gone far enough. I suppose that that can be true of virtually any political advance that is ever made. However, there has been a huge increase in debt write-off—people should understand that—although it will take some time.
The other proposal—which was very important—was that by the end of next year, 75 per cent. of countries should have met the criteria. One of the biggest hold-ups has been that we have given debt relief in principle, but we have not followed it through in terms of assessing those countries in practice.
Following the Government's comprehensive spending review—and for the first time in 20 years or more—the proportion of our national income that we are spending on help to the developing world is increasing.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the Prime Minister refer to one of the smaller, but massively


important, matters concerning the refugees—namely, the tens of thousands of children who have been separated from their parents, often not knowing whether their parents are alive or dead or where any of their relatives are? International Social Service—which specialises in these matters—has a role to play in bringing together families. In the past, this work was much supported by Lady Helen de Freitas, the wife of Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, who gave many years' service to this House. That role is now undertaken by my wife, who is in Tirana at the moment with the French and Italians trying to set up a unit specialising in dealing with children from broken families.
We have given no support to this in the past. It is not a role that the International Red Cross or UNHCR can carry out, and they both want International Social Service to undertake the work. Will the British Government support such activity?

The Prime Minister: We will support such activity, and we thank the many people who are working on this problem, including the right hon. Gentleman's wife. In trying to help the children of refugees to be reunited with their families, a database has been set up and a lot of work is going on. The Department for International Development has been active in this, and I pay tribute to the Department and to its permanent secretary for their work during the Kosovo crisis. Everyone out there recognises that the contribution made by the Department has been magnificent. We have much still to do, and it will take a long time before we will be able to reunite those families. However, it is gradually beginning.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: My right hon. Friend referred to the particular difficulties facing Montenegro. Will reconstruction money apply to

Montenegro, or will it be banned from receiving such aid? The other terrible legacy left by the Serbian military has been landmines—not merely on main roads, but in people's homes and gardens. Is there a special programme to deal with this dreadful problem, which could lead to many more casualties if it is not dealt with?

The Prime Minister: We will look for a way of ensuring that Montenegro receives assistance because of what it has done throughout the conflict. However, we must make sure that money does not find its way back to Milosevic. We should be able to do that, and I pay tribute to Montenegro.
In respect of landmines, there are real dangers to soldiers and to civilians. We are putting in all the expertise that we can. We are making a special grant available to assist in the process, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the dangers persist.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Would the Prime Minister explain in rather more technical detail why it has so suddenly become "daft" for Britain to seek early entry to the single European currency? I do not recall his using such dismissive phrases or conveying that impression in the past. What has changed?

Mr. Winnick: Not a word on Kosovo.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has indeed moved off Kosovo, and that at least is a step forward.
I have always said that we do not want to join the euro straight away. We said that in our statement in October 1997 and again in February 1999, when I announced the changeover plan. There are two daft positions: to go in regardless and to rule it out regardless. We are not in either daft position, but I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is.

City of London Demonstration

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the deplorable outbreak of public disorder and violence in the City of London last Friday, which I believe the whole House will want to condemn. I have today spoken with the Lord Mayor, Lord Levene, and the commissioner of the City of London police, Mr. Perry Nove, about the course of events.
The occasion for the disorder was a so-called day of action that had been planned by several disparate groups to coincide with the G8 summit in Cologne. The City of London police had been aware for some months that such a protest was planned. Information relating to the event had been widely available on the internet.
Organisers of demonstrations normally co-operate early and fully with the police to ensure that arrangements for a peaceful event are satisfactory to all concerned. In this instance, no co-operation was forthcoming: attempts by the police to discuss the arrangements were simply rebuffed. The City police none the less provided as much information as they could to those who live and work in the City about what was planned and what precautions residents and businesses could take.
During the morning of last Friday, the demonstrators were relatively small in number and generally peaceful, but around midday a much larger group, soon numbering several thousand, began to assemble in Liverpool street. After a couple of hours, the group split into four separate groups, one of which very suddenly attacked the police at London Wall. At that point, two members of the crowd were injured; the most serious injury was to a woman who sustained a broken leg.
The groups then converged on the building of the London International Financial Futures Exchange, in Cannon street. A concerted effort was made to storm the building, with demonstrators using scaffold poles and paving stones without any regard for human safety. As a result of police action, the demonstrators then moved away from the immediate vicinity of the building, but disorder continued over a wide area of the City and then in the Trafalgar square area of the Metropolitan police district.
A high-level police presence was maintained on the streets of the City and the west end during and immediately following the disorder. As a result of the day's disorder, 16 people were arrested, for offences including criminal damage with intent; aggravated burglary; and assaults on the police and on members of the public. Investigations are continuing. As is normal in such situations, the commissioner will make a report on the events to his police authority.
I want to place on record my appreciation—and, I am sure, that of the whole House—for the way in which the City of London police, supported by the Metropolitan police and the British Transport police, dealt with this wholly deplorable outbreak of violence, which was plainly premeditated. Sadly, eight injured police officers had to be taken to hospital. On behalf of the House, I wish to extend our sympathy and good wishes to the officers concerned.
At the moment, I have no firm information to suggest that a recurrence of those demonstrations is likely in the foreseeable future. However, I intend to hold further

consultations with the Commissioner and the police service, to ensure that everything possible is done to protect the safety of the public and the businesses in the City and elsewhere in London.
This country has a fine tradition of peaceful protest, which is an essential part of any well functioning democracy. The London police—the Metropolitan police and the City police—have a fine record of co-operating fully with peaceful demonstrations. But the refusal of the organisers of that demonstration even to discuss with the police how the event was to be handled was wholly irresponsible, and showed a contempt for peaceful protest and for democracy. The perpetrators of the violence, and they alone, are responsible for what ensued. There is no excuse for such violence. I believe that the whole House will join me in supporting the efforts of the police to ensure that those responsible for the violence are swiftly brought to justice.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for that statement and I join in his congratulations to the police—the City of London police, the Metropolitan police and the transport police. I also add congratulations to the staff in the LIFFE building, who acted with immense resourcefulness when confronted with a profoundly unpleasant situation.
Nevertheless, I wish to ask some important questions. Does the situation that arose in the City on Friday lead the Home Secretary to consider that he should reverse the fall in police numbers? Will he confirm that the City of London has experienced a 7 per cent. fall in police strength since May 1997 and that what it now has is below its 1979 resource level? In those circumstances, is he satisfied that the City of London police had sufficient officers to cope with the events on Friday and would have sufficient officers to cope with such events if they should unfortunately arise in the future?
Although I appreciate that the City of London police were reinforced by the Met on that occasion, it is also true—and I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm it—that that force itself has suffered a cut of more than 571 since he has been in office. Will he also confirm that the fall in the City of London police manpower in that period is 66 and that there has been a reduction in the budget for the City of London police from £57.1 million in 1998–99 to £55.5 million in 1999–2000? Will he confirm that, under this Government, police numbers have fallen by nearly 800, by contrast with an inherited increase of 4,694? How does that affect the sort of operation that became necessary on Friday?
In view of these events, can the Home Secretary tell the House what, if anything, he intends to do to halt the decline in police numbers? Will he give us his view of what the strength of the police should be? Given the lessons of Friday for future disturbances and the role that might be played by the mounted police, is he satisfied about the strength of that division? Will he take this opportunity to confirm or to deny that there are plans to reduce the numbers or the role of the mounted division?
Given the availability of information about the proposed demonstration on the internet for, as the Home Secretary said, a considerable time before it took place, what discussions did he have with the City of London commissioner about the likely threat to public order? What information did he have about the nature of the


organisations behind the protest, and what efforts were made to gain more intelligence about them before the problems were encountered on Friday?
Demonstrations, however peaceful they are designed to be, always present hazards. Given that the police were expecting to confront a demonstration with normal hazards, and that in reality they had to face a highly organised and pre-planned riot, is he satisfied with the intelligence operation on this occasion? What lessons for the future does he draw from that operation?
When was the Home Secretary first made aware of what was called the carnival against capitalism? As a result of such information as was available, what assessment was made—and what was communicated to him—of the likely threat that the protest posed to the business of the City of London and to public order?
I recognise that he may not be able to respond at this stage, but can the Home Secretary give an estimate of the cost to the public purse of the police, emergency services and other related activities involved in Friday's disorder?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in such circumstances, closed circuit television is of massive importance? Given that importance, and his own rather belated recognition of it in making available extra funding, will he take this opportunity to congratulate the previous Conservative Government, who introduced CCTV, on their foresight, initiative and spending?

Mr. Straw: Of course, I would congratulate any Government who introduced CCTV, but I am sure that the right hon. Lady will know about the proportions involved. When we came to office, only £1 million of free money was available for closed circuit television. We are now investing £150 million—[Interruption.] I greatly regret that the right hon. Lady makes partisan comments on an issue on which the whole House ought to be united, but I feel obliged to respond.
The right hon. Lady asked whether I discussed the matter with the City commissioner. I did not do so personally, but I did discuss it with the Lord Mayor seven weeks ago, and I corresponded with him about it. However, my officials discussed the matter in some detail with the commissioner and his staff.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady will forgive me for not going into detail about the nature of intelligence gathering, and that she will know that there are very good reasons why I cannot do so. However, I assure her that I meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis each month. That detailed meeting covers all public order difficulties likely to arise in the foreseeable future, and this protest was included in that pre-planning.
Lessons for the future always arise from events such as Friday's. It is for that reason, as I have already announced, that the commissioner of police for the City of London, Mr. Nove, will make a full report to his police authority. In addition, the police have available the recent thematic report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary entitled "Keeping the Peace", which examines the policing of such public order events.
I turn now to the numbers of police officers available in such circumstances, the issue that the right hon. Lady raised first and to which I am delighted to respond. As I hope that she will be aware, the relatively small size of the City of London police force means that the numbers

of officers made available for policing demonstrations in the City—especially when they are of such potential gravity—include many from the Metropolitan police service, under the mutual aid provisions. I discussed the issue of numbers with the City commissioner this morning. He authorised me to say that he regards questions about the small variations in the total numbers of police across London as "a red herring", and that he had all the police that he needed.
The right hon. Lady wants reassurance that we are reversing the decline in the numbers of police in London. Her amnesia on the issue is astonishing. Between 1992 and 1997, when she and her colleagues were responsible for setting the police budget in London, numbers in the Metropolitan police area dropped by 1,962—nearly 400 a year. We have stabilised those numbers. Police numbers for 1998–99 were virtually stable, with a reduction of just 21, compared with the reduction of 400 a year for which she was responsible. We are looking forward to similar stability this year. The issue of police numbers is thus an own goal for the right hon. Lady.

Mr. A. J. Beith: May we express our concern for the police officers who were injured and our appreciation of the work of the police from the three forces? Is the Home Secretary aware that the problem with police numbers tends to relate to community policing, not to finding enough police officers to deal with a riot?
Is there not a serious difference between the view of events that the Home Secretary presented in his statement and that which appeared in much of the media? The media presentation is of a largely peaceful demonstration that was spoiled by a small disruptive minority, while the right hon. Gentleman has painted a picture of a much larger element intent on violence, or at least dangerously disruptive activities; and he has said that the organisers of the main demonstration were not prepared to co-operate with the police's attempts to ensure that it passed off peacefully. Is it not important to establish which is the correct view, to adapt police tactics accordingly in any similar situation, and to make the public aware of something as serious as a large-scale, organised attempt to disrupt?
Troublesome and expensive though the violence was, does the Home Secretary agree that it will neither stop the City from carrying out its important economic role nor do anything to further the legitimate ethical, environmental and world poverty concerns that many of us want to address to international business and to Governments?

Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and their tone. We are all used to there being two different stories of what happened in such situations. One story is told by the police and those who observed the events and another is told by those who were involved in violence and are trying to excuse the violence that they have perpetrated on others, particularly—and usually—the police. As far as we can judge, the organisers were intent on violent disruption from the moment they thought of the demonstration. We can tell that from the fact that they made no effort to contact the police and seek the co-operation for which the London police services are renowned with peaceful demonstrations. When the City of London police sought co-operation from the organisers,


they were rebuffed. The perpetrators, including the organisers of the demonstration, are solely responsible for the violence and damage that followed.
The right hon. Gentleman is also correct to say that nothing that took place last Friday, nor any similar threat, will remove the City from its pre-eminent position as one of the world's financial centres which is of huge importance to the wealth of this country. The right hon. Gentleman also said that such behaviour would do nothing to persuade people of the case for ethical investment or greater environmental concern. Ninety-nine per cent. of the people who are concerned about those issues are also concerned to ensure that any protest that they make is peaceful. They want nothing to do with such violence.

Mr. Peter Brooke: May I express appreciation to the Home Secretary for the fact that his office advised me before lunch that he was going to make the statement? I also thank him for the tone in which it was delivered. Despite the damage and disorder that occurred in the streets, will he confirm that all the markets of the City of London remained open on Friday and today? Secondly, can he give the House any information about the disparate groups across the world to which he referred in his statement?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. I can indeed confirm that the markets remained open and I associate myself with the appreciation expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to the staff of the LIFFE building for their courage in seeking to ensure that damage was as limited as possible—and to the many other staff across the City of London and elsewhere who protected their buildings and the people in them to ensure that all the City's markets continued to function.
On the disparate groups, it appears that the protests were linked in some incoherent way to the G8 summit in Cologne. I fail to understand the direct connection. We have little information—certainly information that we can make publicly available—about any connection between those groups and others. As far as we can judge, they were entirely, and very sadly, home grown.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I add my thanks to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) to the Home Secretary for volunteering this statement rather than waiting for a private notice question on a matter of great gravity for the City of London in particular and for London as a whole? Will the monthly meetings with the Commissioner—or was it commissioners—of police continue after the institution of the Metropolitan police authority when the Greater London Authority comes into effect next July? In that context, can he assure us that after July 2000, where matters relating to the policing of the capital affect public order on a national scale, the Home Secretary will still come to the House and make statements such as today's?

Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his remarks and for his appreciation. My monthly

meetings are with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and arise from my position as police authority for the Metropolitan police until next July. I do not routinely have meetings with the commissioner of police for the City of London, whose police authority is a committee of the Common Council in the City. However, it must be said that public disorder on anything like this scale, or at all, in the City is rare. As I explained, there were ad hoc meetings between me and the Lord Mayor of London, Lord Levene, and contact between officials and City police.
As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made clear during the many debates on the establishment of a Metropolitan police authority, the Home Secretary of the day will continue to have a role in the policing of London. That is taken account of in the special arrangements that have been made. For example, a representative of the Home Secretary will be on the police authority and the Home Secretary will be involved to a degree greater than that which applies to police forces outside London in the appointment of the Commissioner.
I anticipate that while there will not be bilaterals with the Commissioner arising from my—by then non-existent—position as police authority, meetings will continue because of the Commissioner's many national and international responsibilities. Of course, should an occasion such as this arise after July 2000, the Home Secretary of the day—certainly if it is me—will make a statement to the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that those who are guilty of such public order offences are enemies of democracy and should, if found guilty, be punished with the full severity of the law. Does he agree that a liability to pay substantial financial compensation to those who have suffered loss is a further deterrent? That could be done in two ways. A convicting court could impose a compensation order, or those who have suffered loss could sue, in the civil courts, those responsible, either the instigators or those who have committed the criminal act. Does he agree that that should be encouraged, because a huge financial consequence is a serious deterrent, even if the people concerned may be largely without means?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct. The question of compensation orders is not for me but for the courts. However, I hope that those concerned will take note of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments and my endorsement of them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also made the imaginative suggestion that, regardless of whether criminal convictions are brought, action for compensation should be taken against some of the organisers of the demonstration. I hope that that suggestion will be taken on board by the businesses affected and by those concerned in the City.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The Home Secretary said frankly that the demonstration was a premeditated and organised riot. Does he recall that, until just over a year ago, an element in the MI5 Security Service—for which the Home Secretary has responsibility—called F Branch was responsible for


monitoring, and if necessary organising the infiltration of, subversive organisations? Does not this event qualify as a subversive activity?
Does the Home Secretary further recall that it was announced a little over a year ago with a fanfare of trumpets that MI5 was no longer monitoring subversive organisations? Will the Home Secretary confirm that that remains the case and that the Security Service did nothing whatsoever to investigate and monitor the situation or to advise the police about how these events could have been avoided?

Mr. Straw: I know the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in such matters—but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I remember no fanfare nor any trumpets in respect of any statement about the Security Service and subversion. Following the collapse of the Berlin wall, the Security Service's interest in subversion—in the old sense of the word—has certainly declined. It is also the case—I make no apologies for the fact that I do not intend to give any details about this subject in a public forum such as the House—that the law enforcement agencies continue to be interested in those who pose a serious threat to public order.

Mr. Tim Loughton: As someone who has had an office in the City for the past 15 years, I associate myself with the Home Secretary's praise for the police action—particularly in terms of the intelligence that the police shared with City firms in advance of Friday's demonstration and throughout the day. I also praise the City for not allowing its business to be disrupted, despite City workers being trapped in their offices while 5,000 members of rent-a-mob brayed outside.
Will the Home Secretary comment on newspaper reports that many of the so-called demonstrators on Friday were paid and provided with packed lunches? If those details are forthcoming, what action will be taken against the organisers? What use was made of the so-called ring of steel that was set up in the City some years ago primarily in response to IRA bombings at that time? What action was taken to man those many posts around the City to prevent entry to the area by people who had premeditated ideas of causing violence and were armed with crowbars and other obviously offensive weapons? Does the Home Secretary think that enough action was taken on the day to stop such people gaining entry in the first place?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the sharing of intelligence and for his appreciation of the work of the City of London police. A large contingent of Metropolitan police officers—slightly larger than that of City police—was brought in under the mutual aid arrangements. I believe that the arrangements for sharing intelligence worked well.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman's other points, the policing of such events does not necessarily go according to plan. The organisers of such events do not share their plan—such as it is—with the police, because they wish to effect a high degree of disruption, disorder and violence. I have no information about whether any demonstrators were provided with packed lunches or were paid to attend. That may be a matter for the police investigation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the use of the so-called ring of steel. It was introduced under powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act that are designed to monitor and, to some extent, constrain the inflow and egress of vehicles in the City of London.
We do live in a democracy in which peaceful protest is allowed. The police always have to give a proportionate response. Of course, in these circumstances, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the police are extremely sensitive—I pay great tribute to them—to the rights of people peacefully to demonstrate. Sadly, sometimes those rights are gravely abused. However, I shall certainly take up the point about the ring of steel with the commissioner of the City of London police. I have no doubt that it will also feature in the commissioner's report to his police authority.

Mr. Robert Key: It is clear that the police had advance notice of the demonstration and that they used every possible method to take advantage of that. Does the Home Secretary agree that they had their hands tied behind their backs? When the House passed the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it was clearly the intention of the House that trespassory assemblies on public highways should not be allowed in certain circumstances, and that the police should have power to impose exclusion orders. That power was removed by the Law Lords in a case last year. Would it not have been to the advantage of the police, and of the whole community, if that matter were now remedied? Will the Home Secretary consider introducing measures to amend the law in that respect? I assure him that the City of London police are not alone. If it were not for that judgment, the events in the City of London might not have occurred—and nor would those that took place at Stonehenge in my constituency last night.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Certainly, the Appellate Committee of the other place, by the judgment that it made, chose considerably to restrict the circumstances in which exclusion orders can be imposed to restrain trespassory assemblies. I fully understand and share his concerns not only about the events that took place last Friday in the City of London, but about the terrible events that occurred in the Stonehenge area of his constituency overnight. I also fully comprehend the concern of the Wiltshire constabulary, to whom I pay tribute for the way in which they and the other forces involved tried to deal with that dreadful disorder. I shall discuss the question of what appears to be a lacuna in the law, following the decision of the Appellate Committee. After those discussions, we shall take steps to remedy the gap.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Although I share the Home Secretary's proper concern that civil liberties in this country should be upheld, and I understand, therefore, that that is bound to fetter the way he responds to anticipated demonstrations of this kind, is it not true that powers do exist both to divert and to regulate such demonstrations? In circumstances in which the organisers have refused to enter into any form of co-operation beforehand as to how a peaceful demonstration will take place, should that not be considered if a future


demonstration of this type is planned—in which no co-operation whatever as to how it can be carried out peacefully is extended to the police?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that, notwithstanding the difficulties following the judgment of the Appellate Committee, powers exist to divert and to regulate demonstrations in certain circumstances. However, it is not an offence for people to seek to pass up and down the highway as part of a demonstration. The regulation of demonstrations in which the organisers deny their role as organisers and are, in essence, intent on covert criminal conspiracies is extremely difficult.
The judgments as to which powers to seek—when, for example, they depend on the approval of the local authority, the Secretary of State or, in some cases, both—have to be made, in the first instance, by the chief officers of police. I do not see it as my job—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not see it as his—to try to second-guess their professional judgment. I see it as my job to ensure that chief officers of police and all the officers who bravely act under them are fully backed in whatever judgments they make in what are often extremely difficult circumstances.

Orders of the Day — Food Standards Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the Minister, I should remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a limit of 15 minutes on all Back-Bench speeches for the entire debate.

5 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Today's Second Reading debate takes forward a significant public protection measure; this Bill provides a new framework for food safety and food standards. It is based on openness, transparency and best science. It requires the Food Standards Agency to act proportionately—to consider the nature and costs of risks, and the cost and benefit of its risk management. The Bill addresses public concerns; it puts the interests of consumers first. It is intended to protect the public and, more than that, to underpin public confidence.
The proposals in the Bill must have been subject to some of the most intensive consultation of any measure to reach this House. The Bill was a commitment in the Labour party's 1997 manifesto. Immediately after the election, we published Professor James's report with the initial proposals for the agency. We pressed on with the White Paper and earlier this year, published a draft Bill for consultation.
As well as consulting on the draft Bill, the House agreed to set up a Special Select Committee to scrutinise the Bill. I am grateful to the Committee for its work, which has helped to inform the final shape of the Bill. Alongside all that, ministerial colleagues—I pay particular tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Minister of State—and I have held a series of meetings on the proposals with interested parties, as well as public meetings.
At every stage of consultation, the proposals for the agency have received resounding support. What criticism there has been was directed at the proposal for a levy to fund the agency's additional work. There were objections to the flat-rate levy proposal and, more significantly, to the proposal for the rate of the levy to increase over time. The Government have taken the consultation on all that very seriously and have decided, as the House will know, not to proceed with the levy proposal.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Government's concession is much appreciated. The Farmers Union of Wales, for example, has taken it as an indication of the Government's willingness to listen to such concerns. Does the Minister recognise that the same principle might apply to the Meat Hygiene Service? Huge costs and regulation are weighing down producers and abattoirs. Will the Minister undertake to consider that issue very seriously?

Mr. Brown: The Government listened on the levy, and we are not only listening very carefully on the matter of costs that fall on the abattoir industry. A current review


has already resulted in the Government absorbing for a further year specified risk material charges, which are the largest single element of new charges that were under consideration for this year. The matter is still under consideration; the Government are listening. Nevertheless, there is a clear and discernable trend in the industry towards larger plants, and fewer of them. The hon. Gentleman asked me not to exacerbate that trend by the imposition of charges, which is a perfectly fair point and well made.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that the Bill facilitates the agency's undertaking of work, along with the Department of Health, in the area of nutrition. That means that, among other things, the agency will be able to work with health education and promotion bodies in disseminating information to the public. Before dealing with the agency's other functions, I shall deal with appointments.
In response to the Select Committee, the Government promised that we would say something about the procedures that we were adopting for the appointment of the chairman, deputy chairman and members of the agency. The power to make such appointments is set out in clause 2. Appointments will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his opposite numbers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The agency will report to Parliament through Health Ministers. Appointments will be carried out under Nolan rules. The procedure will be absolutely fair and open. Alongside that, it will be subject to independent scrutiny.
All posts will be advertised in the national press and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in specialist ethnic minority publications. The only way for anyone to be considered will be to complete an application form. The process of advertising will begin in a few days' time, following the decision of the House on Second Reading.
The members of the agency will collectively provide a reasonable balance of relevant skills and experience. I anticipate that the majority will come from a wider public interest background, without specific affiliation. However, that does not mean that an involvement with a food or agriculture-related business will automatically exclude someone from consideration. All applicants will have to declare all personal interests or connections, and the appointment panels will be charged with probing potential conflicts of interest very carefully. I must make it clear that there are no specific interests—commercial or public—which would automatically exclude any candidate.
The agency's functions lie at the core of the Bill. The Food Standards Agency is being established as the principal authority in Government on food safety and standards matters. It will be the chief source of policy advice to Ministers and other public authorities. Its functions will include drafting and making recommendations on legislation, negotiating in the European Union and internationally on behalf of Ministers, and providing the necessary information and assistance to support decision making. In carrying out that role, the agency will operate from day to day at arm's length from Ministers. However, responsibility for making legislation and ultimate democratic accountability remain, very clearly, with Parliament.
The agency will have the general function of advising, informing and helping the public and others, including the food industry, on all matters within its scope. It will deliver independent and clear advice.
To enable the agency to discharge its advisory functions, the Bill places on it an obligation to keep abreast of the latest scientific and technological understanding, and of any other developments that are relevant to its work. I expect the agency to take a strong lead in developing a sound scientific base for food safety.

Joan Ruddock: As my right hon. Friend is surely aware, the G8 communiqué has said that references are to be made to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development scientific committees, for them to look into the products of genetic modification. Does he believe that those new studies, to be undertaken in the EU, will have any implications for the Food Standards Agency? Will he, under his wider responsibilities, ensure that the terms of reference of those studies are made available to Members of the House?

Mr. Brown: One of the purposes of the creation of the agency is to ensure transparency. I welcome the work that the OECD is to undertake. In particular, I think it is right to consider both the food safety and the trade aspects of the new technology. It is the Government's desire to be candid with the House and to ensure that information is in the public domain. I therefore give my hon. Friend, as far as it is my place to do so, the assurances that she seeks.

Mr. Anthony Steen: rose—

Mr. Chris Mullin: rose—

Mr. Christopher Gill: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), secondly to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and thirdly to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

Mr. Steen: As I understand it, the incidence of food poisoning has increased in this country every year, and has increased fivefold since 1982. Each year since 1982, there have been more rules and regulations for food hygiene. Presumably, the new agency will recommend even more rules and regulations for food hygiene. Has the Minister estimated how many extra cases of food poisoning will result from the existence of the agency, which will make us cleaner and cleaner, and produce more and more cases of food poisoning?

Mr. Brown: The agency will provide effective advice to those who prepare and sell food, either in the catering industry or the retailing industry, those who store it and those who prepare food at home. There is a range of reasons for outbreaks of food poisoning and a range of methods to address them. That is not done just through the regulatory regime. Clear-cut advice to the public has an important part to play, in which the agency will provide a particular service and impetus.

Mr. Mullin: I see no reference in the Bill to farm animal welfare as it impacts on food safety. My right


hon. Friend is aware that the rise in food poisoning, to which the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) referred, is directly related to the growth of industrial farming and, for example, the massive misuse of antibiotics. Will the agency have the power to make suggestions about the way in which farm animals are reared, where that can be shown to be connected to the safety of food?

Mr. Brown: On the use of antibiotics as growth promoters rather than as veterinary interventions, yes, the agency will give advice to Ministers. The issue is under consideration at European Union level in the Council of Ministers.
On farm animal welfare, I know that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the toughest statement yet from Agriculture Ministers in the EU and the Commission, following the outcome of our latest meeting at Luxembourg on the trade aspects of animal welfare. As part of the forthcoming World Trade Organisation round, we have agreed to seek recognition for animal welfare measures within the WTO rules. As my hon. Friend knows, in the current WTO rules, there is no specific recognition of animal welfare, as opposed to animal hygiene and whether the product is fit for human consumption.

Mr. Gill: The Minister said that the role of the Food Standards Agency was to inform, help and advise the industry. Does that rule out the possibility of the FSA being an enforcing agency as well?

Mr. Brown: The FSA is an enforcing agency, but only of the rules that have been agreed by Parliament. It would be a rather feeble set-up if the agency could tell us what was wrong, but could not do anything about it. The functions being transferred to the agency are those that are at present carried out by food safety officials in my Department, by officials in the Department of Health and by the Meat Hygiene Service, which is a regulatory and advisory service. The agency will have responsibility for enforcing the rules that Parliament has agreed. As well as advising the public and the industry, it will advise Ministers. If necessary, Ministers will have to act on that advice and bring proposals before Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman can, I hope, take some comfort from the fact that the Bill contains a clear statement that the policy advice must be proportionate to risk. In other words, we want the public to be protected, but we do not want the agency to become over-regulatory and bureaucratic, which I expect is the fear that lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. David Maclean: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am willing to take a further intervention.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. His comments provoked me to rise. If he and his officials conclude that, in a particular case, the agency is being over-cautious, and that its advice on new regulations is not proportionate to the risk assessed by him and his officials or by Department of Health officials, will he be able to stand in the way of a powerful new agency clamouring for new legislation?

Mr. Brown: Ultimately, those are decisions for Ministers and for the House. The lead Minister will be

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. One of the new features of the agency is transparency. It can formulate and explain its advice and put it in the public domain as well as giving it to Ministers, so that there can be a public discussion of the issues. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the balance of views on these matters depends to some extent on where the critic is coming from.

Mr. Steen: rose—

Mr. Brown: One more go, then I must make progress.

Mr. Steen: Will the agency have its own team of hygiene police?

Mr. Brown: The entire Meat Hygiene Service is being transferred to the agency. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Meat Hygiene Service currently operates as a next steps agency reporting to my Department; it will operate as a stand-alone next steps agency reporting to the Food Standards Agency, which in turn will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in respect of seeking a legislative route. That does not mean that there will be no consultation with my Department. Responsibilities for industry sponsorship, for example, remain with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, clearly, we will want to establish a good working relationship with the agency and a clear dialogue. I have no doubt whatever that we will be able to do that.

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene a second time. I certainly welcome the progress that has been made regarding the WTO, but my question was about the powers of the agency. Does he accept that there is a clear relationship between the way in which farm animals are treated and the safety of much of the food that we eat? If he does, what powers will the agency have to address that problem?

Mr. Brown: I do accept that, and there are enforcement mechanisms in place for farm animal welfare for the different livestock regimes. Indeed, at the Council in Luxembourg, we agreed to alter the rules for laying hens, which is a welcome and long-overdue reform. There are other regimes in place and a base level of animal welfare regulation is being introduced throughout the European Union. That forms the basis in respect of trade.
The hygiene levels that farmers are obliged to meet for the purposes of food safety probably fall short of what my hon. Friend means by acceptable animal welfare. For that reason, I and other Ministers who are coming from essentially the same direction are trying to raise animal welfare standards throughout the EU, to consider carefully what impact that will have on trade with third countries and to achieve some international recognition of the importance of animal welfare, especially in the increasingly liberalised world trading environment.
My hon. Friend and farmers would not thank Ministers who drove up animal welfare standards to such a pitch that they exported the industry, and so had neither an industry nor animal welfare. That is not our objective. We are making steady progress, but he is right to point out that we are in the vanguard on those issues. I am heartened by what came out of the latest Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg.
Having taken interventions, perhaps I can move on and, in particular, draw attention to the significant budget that the agency will have for commissioning and carrying out its own research and surveillance. It will be working closely with other Departments and funders of research. The agency will have powers, which are set out in clauses 10 and 11, to carry out surveillance at any stage in the food chain to enable it to monitor the general safety of the food supply, to identify and track any problems and to inform good decision making.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. My concern about the agency relates precisely to the task that he is setting out. Could not it be conducted by environmental health officers or health and safety inspectors? The feeling I am getting in the Vale of York is that we do not need extra bureaucracy. Can he convince the House that he needs an agency to undertake those specific obligations?

Mr. Brown: That is essentially work that is carried out currently. The purpose of the agency is to pull food safety work—the work of officials in my Department, in the Department of Health and in the Meat Hygiene Service, which employs the largest number—together into one place, but there will, of course, also be an important working relationship, which I will refer to in a moment, between the agency and the environmental health officers who are employed by local government. That is not another tier of officialdom, which is what the hon. Lady's question implied, but a better and rather more effective arrangement of what is in place at present.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Can the Minister explain how the agency's integrity and independence will be maintained when it is put above the Meat Hygiene Service? There will, no doubt, be another food scare, and the blame will whizz straight past the Meat Hygiene Service and be laid at the door of the head of the agency. The Special Select Committee made it clear that we thought that the Meat Hygiene Service should be separate from the Food Standards Agency so that it could perform its audit function without having its integrity questioned.

Mr. Brown: I was going to refer to that point later, but I may as well deal with it now. The Meat Hygiene Service's audit function will be separate and independent, so to that extent, the Special Select Committee's concern is met. However, the Government believe that, on balance, it is probably right for policy and implementation to be tied together. That means that the Meat Hygiene Service will report to Ministers through the agency. In other words, a next steps agency will report to the board of the Food Standards Agency. I accept that the Select Committee came to a different view on that point, but the Government have not accepted it—with the important qualification of the audit itself. The Government see some merit in what the Select Committee said about that, and want an independent and separate audit so that the arrangements are independent of the rest of the working arrangements for both policy making and enforcement. Therefore, although I cannot wholly meet the hon. Gentleman's concerns, the Government have gone some way to meeting them.
I return to a point that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) made earlier: the agency will have important new functions in setting standards for, and monitoring enforcement by, local authorities. Those powers are contained in clauses 12 to 16. It will also be required to report annually on the performance of its own enforcement work. That will include the work of the Meat Hygiene Service which, as a key enforcer of food safety law, will be integrated into the agency. The audit of the MHS will be carried out as a function separate from its day-to-day operation.

Dr. Howard Stoate: We have already heard about the significant rise in cases of food poisoning, and my hon. Friend reassured the House about how those will be tackled in the future. However, he will be aware that many more people in this country die every year as a result of poor nutritional standards—up to 30,000 are estimated to die of heart disease. How will the Food Standards Agency tackle the problem of nutritional standards as well as deal with microbiological safety and food standards?

Mr. Brown: I referred to that earlier in my remarks. The agency will work with the Department of Health on nutritional matters. There is no debarment to the agency working in that area. I understand that work is in progress on an agreement between the Department of Health and the agency about the details. The Department takes the matter seriously and looks forward to working with the agency on that issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who is sitting next to me, will have heard what my hon. Friend said, and I hope that my reply will reassure him.
The Bill provides for the agency to operate throughout the food chain, including on the farm. As well as being able to act to protect public health, the agency will have an input into other farm-related decisions that affect food safety. Those include the approval and review of pesticides and veterinary medicines. Because of its significance for public health, the agency will also have responsibility in the area of animal feeding stuffs. New powers will enable Ministers to update provisions on feeding stuffs so that regulation of animal feed is consistent with that of food for direct human consumption.
The Bill provides the basis for the agency to publish its advice and information to Ministers and other public bodies. Those powers are provided in clause 19. Having taken note of the comments made on the draft Bill, including by the Select Committee, we have brought the provisions on publication into a single clause that clarifies their effect.
The agency will operate with a general presumption of openness—the Bill provides the basis for that. Before publishing, the agency must consider any confidentiality issues, but it can publish information if it judges that that is in the public interest. It cannot automatically publish information protected by a prohibition on disclosure in other legislation or under a European Union obligation—for example, the Data Protection Act 1998. Some statutory bars are explicitly overridden by the Bill, and clause 25 contains enabling powers for Ministers to relax or remove other statutory prohibitions that hinder the agency's work.

Mr. Peter Luff: Given the wide-ranging powers that the Minister has just described,


and the impact that they could have on farming practices, at least indirectly, will the Minister confirm that the Government intend that the agency will be accountable to the Select Committee on Health and the Select Committee on Agriculture?

Mr. Brown: It is not for me, as a Minister of the Crown, to comment on the workings of Select Committees, which are properly a matter for the House and not for me. As to the placing of information in the public domain, one of the agency's most important founding powers is openness. I remind the House that it is an independent agency, driven rationally and relying on science. Putting key conclusions that have been independently arrived at and key advice to Ministers in the public domain is an important power in its own right, and an important safeguard for the public, because the rest of the decision-making process must then be defended. I believe that that is right.
If a Select Committee wanted to take evidence on a particular subject, it would be able to do so. As we are all aware, a number of Select Committees are examining similar areas, inquiry by remorseless inquiry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may make that point with some feeling—perhaps with feeling more than I could—when he winds up.

Mr. Paterson: Is it true that officials of the Meat Hygiene Service are obliged to sign the Official Secrets Act? If so, as there are 1,500 of them and they will be answerable to the Food Standards Agency, how will we have an open culture?

Mr. Brown: The point that we are making in the Bill is that policy advice to Ministers is not an official secret. Officials of the Meat Hygiene Service have the same obligations as other public servants. It is for the agency to decide whether to put advice into the public domain, not for employees to make their own decisions on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister, as he has been most courteous in giving way. What new information on food safety may be published by the agency that his Department and the Department of Health do not presently issue?

Mr. Brown: The obvious answer is submissions and policy advice to Ministers. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because he has carried out these duties, advice is given to Ministers, who decide whether to accept or reject it. In this important area of public safety, the new agency will arrive at its decisions independently. Its decisions will be science based—that is, not based on any economic interest of one sort or another—and placed in the public domain as policy advice to Ministers, especially the Secretary of State for Health.
There will, of course, be consultation within government, as happens now, but the fact that that advice is transparent and science based means that there can also be public discussion. There may be overriding factors that the Government wish to take into account in modifying the advice or even rejecting it outright, but for the first time, Ministers will have to be able to explain

their decisions. In the current climate, any Minister who introduced another factor would have to provide a pretty good explanation. That would be required by the House, and it would certainly be required by the public, given the way in which the public debate has been driven. Although it has been underplayed during the debate, this is an important new safeguard for the public.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me three times.
May I switch the debate slightly? The agency will deal with health and hygiene standards. Last week, in answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) about genetically modified crops, the Minister seemed to say that if permission were given for a GM crop to be grown in another European country, there would be nothing to stop a company from applying to produce the appropriate technology here, and to grow in this country the crop that had been licensed to be grown in another country.
If permission has been given for a crop that is not accepted to be hygienic or safe in this country to be grown in another European country, will the agency be able to deal with the problem, or will it be outside the agency's remit?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether that is an environmental protection question, which would be outside the scope of the agency, or a food safety question, which would be entirely within its scope. If it is a food safety question, the regulatory regimes will be applied by the agency. If it believes that a product is to be put on the market in the United Kingdom that would be injurious to human health, it will have the power to say no. If there is a need for Ministers to act to protect the public, of course they will take such action.
Environmental protection is a slightly different matter, because of the United Kingdom's unique farm and environmental structures. The Government are determined to conduct trials before any genetically modified crops are introduced commercially, and to assess the impact on the rest of the environment. That strikes me as a sensible and methodical way in which to go about things. Environmental protection issues, however, are outside the scope of the agency's work.
The Bill contains provisions to ensure that the agency acts reasonably and proportionately, and that it is duly accountable to Parliament through Ministers. Clause 22 provides for a statement of the agency's objectives and practices to be drawn up, incorporating guiding principles that we laid down in the White Paper. The agency will also be required by clause 23 to take account of risks, costs and benefits to all concerned before making decisions or taking action, and any action should be based on the best scientific advice.
Ministers will retain the power to direct the agency should it fail seriously. We regard that as an essential safeguard if democratic accountability and control are to be retained. However, we have noted the views of the Select Committee, and no longer provide a power to direct the agency not to publish information when there are national security concerns. Although it is theoretically possible that such situations could arise, they will be rare if they occur at all, and the Government feel that they would be dealt with better in other ways.
As foreshadowed in the draft Bill, this Bill provides a new power in clause 27 to make regulations to establish a statutory notification scheme relating to different types of food-borne disease.
As the House will know, food safety is a devolved subject. The Bill, therefore, contains special provisions to ensure that the agency is accountable to the devolved authorities, and that Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can perform their devolved functions effectively. The Bill provides for the agency to be a United Kingdom body, but we made it clear when consulting on the draft Bill that the Government would consult formally with the devolved authorities to establish whether they were content to proceed with United Kingdom legislation on that basis. There has as yet been no agreement on devolution in Northern Ireland, but a debate is to take place in the Scottish Parliament, and the Health Committee of the Welsh Assembly will also be considering the principles in the Bill.
The Bill includes powers, in clauses 32 and 33, to deal with the consequences of any change by the devolved Administrations. The Bill also provides for the agency to co-operate with the new food safety promotion board, which will operate in the whole of Ireland after devolution in Northern Ireland.
The working arrangements between my Department and the Department of Health have made good progress in the joint food safety and standards group. On behalf of Ministers in both Departments, I should like to express my thanks to the officials who have been involved in that work—which has not only been done because it is right in itself, but has paved the way for the agency's establishment.
We are well advanced in preparing for the new agency—which the Bill will enable to operate as a separate legal entity. Our aim is that the agency should be formally launched in the first half of next year.
The Bill will provide the basis for a unique new body, which is independent, open and responsive to the concerns of consumers. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I apologise to the Minister for not being in the Chamber for the first part of his speech, but I shall study very carefully in Hansard the section that I missed.
The Opposition welcome the establishment of a Food Standards Agency, and are glad that the Government have decided to honour what they described as
one of our most important manifesto commitments",
namely, to
establish an independent food standards agency".
However, the agency as proposed in the Bill falls rather a long way short of keeping the Government's pledge.
When the Prime Minister wrote in the preface to the 1998 White Paper that the Government would do away with
the old climate of secrecy and suspicion and replace it with modern, open arrangements which will deliver real improvements in standards",
he raised our hopes. However, in its current form, the Bill will not achieve that aim. Nevertheless, we continue to live in hope.
The Bill is significantly changed from the draft Bill, which was published some months ago. One change is unreservedly welcome: the Government's climbdown on charging. Labour's original proposal to hit every small shop in the country with a flat-rate charge—precisely the same amount as a huge out-of-town superstore would pay—was unfair, unjustified and wrong. Conservative Members opposed that plan from the day that it was announced, and, after months of Conservative campaigning, the Government have finally seen sense. I trust that they will be equally ready to listen today, and to make the other necessary changes to the Bill.
As I am on the subject of charges, I should say that there remains some doubt about how permanent and complete the Government's decision not to hit small shops will be.

Mr. Nick Brown: I can help the hon. Gentleman on that. The clause dealing with the levy, and which would be the statutory foundation for such a charge, has been removed from the Bill. There is no primary legislation, and therefore no levy—more permanent than that one cannot get.

Mr. Yeo: I am relieved to hear that. However, does the Minister realise that the anxiety about the issue arises from the position of the Meat Hygiene Service, which is to be transferred to the new Food Standards Agency? The MHS already makes very substantial charges to slaughterhouses for inspection, and the burden of those high charges is driving many slaughterhouses out of business. Therefore, the principle of the agency—effectively via the MHS—making charges to parts of the industry already seems to be established. For that reason, the Minister's assurance is particularly badly needed.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Bill proposes no changes to the Meat Hygiene Service charges, which are set at exactly the same levels as we inherited from the previous, Conservative Government. We are proposing no changes to those charges. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Opposition now have an entirely new policy on the matter—that the MHS should not charge to recover its expenses, as required by European directives—will he say so?

Mr. Yeo: The Minister should have listened to what I said. I did not say that there was a new proposal from the Conservative party. I merely pointed out that in the context of the Bill and the Government's climbdown on the decision to charge small shops, there were already opportunities for the Government to charge businesses that are affected by the Bill.

Miss McIntosh: Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend. I understand that we are the only country in Europe that is interpreting the French word "vétérinaire" to mean fully qualified veterinary surgeons. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister on why we have interpreted that word so strictly, as environmental health inspectors or Health and Safety Executive officers could simply be retrained? Why should Spanish vets be allowed to do this job when they cannot tell the difference between the animals concerned?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point to which the Minister of State will, I hope,


respond when he winds up the debate. This matter is causing great concern to the industry and is doing considerable damage to a number of small businesses. The effect is that small businesses must lower still further the prices that they can pay to the livestock farmers who supply them.

Mr. Paterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how catastrophic the charges are for small businesses? I received a letter from an abattoir in east Wales which is being charged, effectively, £180 a tonne in inspection charges, whereas a large supermarket in south Wales is charged, effectively, less than £1 a tonne.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. [Laughter.] I am sorry that members of the Government find it funny that small businesses up and down the country—some of which may be in their constituencies—are being destroyed. The consequence is that live animals have to travel far greater distances because, since the Government came to power, one slaughterhouse has closed every 10 days. My hon. Friend makes a good point about the uneven impact of the policy, and about the way in which it bears particularly heavily on small abattoirs.
Since the White Paper was published, several new issues relevant to the FSA have arisen. Recently, the Belgian food scare raised several questions. When the Belgian authorities belatedly decided to inform other countries of the presence of dioxins in certain Belgian animal feedstuffs and food products—something of which they had been aware for more than two months—why did they tell other countries before Britain?
Is it true that the British Government first heard about the problem from sources in the food industry, not directly from the Belgian authorities? Did the Minister himself hear of it first on Sunday 30 May from Commissioner Fischler? What happened during that missing weekend? Why did MAFF officials, who were told on Friday 28 May, not inform the Minister at once, as he prepared for an important European Council of Ministers meeting, about the possible contamination of some eggs and poultry produced in Belgium? Is being the last to know what Labour expects after all its efforts to please other European countries?

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Perhaps I could bring the hon. Gentleman back to the subject of the Food Standards Agency. Does he believe that if we had had a Food Standards Agency two years into Baroness Thatcher's first Administration in 1981, agriculture and other industries would have been spared the terrible grief and suffering that they experienced because of mismanagement in the subsequent decade?

Mr. Yeo: We do not know the answer to that question. However, we do know that the agency is supposed to address issues of concern to consumers today. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I believe that consumers in this country were concerned about reports of possible contamination of eggs and poultry produced in Belgium. That would have been a matter for the Food Standards Agency, had it been in operation. If those matters are not the agency's responsibility, I wonder why it is being set up.
The hon. Gentleman asked about what happened in 1981, which shows that he is more interested in making a political point than in tackling issues that are of concern to consumers today and for which the Government are responsible.
The question that the Minister must answer above all is how the existence of the Food Standards Agency would have helped in the recent Belgian food scare. What would or could it have done to alleviate that significant food safety problem? Would it, too, have been kept in the dark by the Belgian authorities? Has the Minister made any protest to the Belgian Government? If so, was it in writing and will he publish it? He should not rely on the European Commission to protest, because Britain was kept in the dark longer than several other European Union countries.
The Minister seems to regard this as a matter for mirth.

Mr. Nick Brown: I am tempted to regard what the hon. Gentleman is saying as a matter for mirth. The fact is that our public officials responded promptly and in an exemplary way to the recent dioxin scandal. It is wrong for him to imply that there is anything wrong with either eggs or poultry products in this country; there is not.
Let me also make it clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that we promptly paralleled the actions that the Commission has taken. I support Commissioner Fischler in what he has done. For the hon. Gentleman to imply that there is some protectionist advantage to be taken from this tragedy is wrong both for our food industry and for our trading relationships with others in the European Union.

Mr. Yeo: When the Minister reads Hansard, he will see that he has completely misrepresented what I said. I make no criticism of what Commissioner Fischler did; my concern is over the fact that the Belgian authorities kept this country in the dark for two and a half months yet the Minister sits there complacently, tacitly admitting that he has made no protest. What use will the Food Standards Agency be?

Mr. Brown: When I first found out about it, I described the failure of the Belgian authorities properly to inform their partners in the European Union as a scandal. I said that here, at the Dispatch Box, and the hon. Gentleman was present at the time. He has no right to say that I have remained silent on the issue, because he was here when I was far from silent. My remarks on behalf of the United Kingdom Government have been widely reported in the Belgian press and elsewhere on the continent.

Mr. Yeo: I am sure that the Belgian Government are reeling. The fact is that the Minister is notoriously reluctant to make any complaint about the actions of other European Union Governments. Even after we provided the evidence of unlawful payments by the French Government to French pig farmers, placing British pig producers at a yet further disadvantage, he refused to act. He asked us to produce the evidence, which eventually we did.

Mr. Brown: Far from refusing to act, I took up the issue of the French payments with the Commission. Conservative Members have provided no evidence. All they have done is refer to newspaper reports. Who in their right mind would call that evidence?

Mr. Yeo: I personally delivered a copy of the speech made by the French Minister on the subject, after the Minister had refused to take any action, when we referred to these matters on the Floor of the House.
British consumers will not be satisfied by the complacency of a Minister who feels that one statement in the House of Commons represents sufficient protest against the Belgian Government, who may have put the safety of British consumers at risk for two and a half months after that Government were aware of those risks. The fact that he makes no protest about that is a fearful indictment of the Minister's attitude, and underlines how completely paralysed the Food Standards Agency will be if it has to rely on information that comes to it as slowly as the Government received the information from Belgium.
The second issue that has arisen is the Government's confusion over genetically modified crops and food with GM ingredients, a controversy that is now so heated that it has been discussed in the margins of the G8 Heads of Government meeting. Nothing in the Bill suggests that the Food Standards Agency would be able to defuse that controversy. In the past six months, public confidence in Britain in a potentially beneficial technology has been destroyed by the Government's failure to address the serious environmental and health questions posed by GM crops.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that what may have caused some of the lack of public confidence was what happened over BSE under his Government?

Mr. Yeo: There are now millions of British people who are seriously alarmed by the way in which this Government have ridden roughshod over the advice they have received about the environmental dangers of GM crops. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the right way to respond to those legitimate public concerns is to try to make a cheap point about BSE, he will not be in this House much longer.

Ms Sally Keeble: What did the Conservatives do, when they were in government, to take account of public concerns when they approved four GM foodstuffs for sale? What reassurances did they provide for the public?

Mr. Yeo: The concern to which the hon. Lady referred is a different one from my anxiety about—[Laughter.] Well, it is a pity to waste the House's time when interventions are as ignorant as that. I was talking about the environmental risks posed by GM crops. That was not an issue that arose at any time during the Conservative Government's time in office. The issue to which the hon. Lady referred is the separate one of whether the food on sale in this country which contains GM ingredients is safe. The food passed all the tests that were available at the time and we have no reason to believe that it is not safe.
I remain concerned by the way in which public confidence has been destroyed and by the fact that that process of destruction has been personally masterminded by the Prime Minister. On 3 February, the Prime Minister told the House:
It is important that we proceed on the basis of the scientific evidence."—[Official Report, 3 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 926.]
A day later, English Nature—the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation matters—exposed that

claim as fraudulent. Its chairman, a Labour peer appointed to her post by this Government, wrote:
We cannot assure the public that decisions are being made on the basis of good environmental science.
Alarmed by that, the Government have since acted to prevent advice from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser from being published until it has been examined by the so-called biotechnology presentation group. Ministers are no longer willing for advice from senior and objective sources to be made public until it has been censored by Government spin doctors. That outrageous manipulation of public opinion is presumably an attempt to avoid the Prime Minister again being humiliated by having his statements in the House immediately contradicted by statutorily appointed experts.

Mr. Rooker: I invite the hon. Gentleman to write to Sir Robert May, the Government's chief scientist, and to Professor Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, and ask them whether they feel that Ministers have at any time interfered with their reports before publication.

Mr. Yeo: I have with me a confirmation from both those gentlemen that their advice was revised after a meeting of the biotechnology presentation group. As usual with Labour, the reputation of Ministers matters more than the protection of the public health and the British environment. Once again, millions of consumers who are worried about eating food with GM ingredients will ask how the Food Standards Agency will help them. The answer is that the agency as currently proposed will do nothing whatever to allay their fears or to warn them about the possible presence of GM ingredients in the food they buy.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I remind the hon. Gentleman of when his party was in power and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils was refused permission to publish its advice to Ministers. Does he recall that?

Mr. Yeo: I recall clearly that when the Conservative Government were in power the concern about GM crops and food with GM ingredients was not running at its present level. [Laughter.] It is instructive, and I hope that Hansard will record, that Ministers find public concern about the environmental consequences of GM crops a matter for laughter. Conservatives happen to believe that, if circumstances change and public concern about an issue grows, it is correct and necessary to review policy, whether a party is in government or opposition.

Joan Ruddock: I believe that the hon. Gentleman said that, under the previous Government, the GM foods that were licensed were subjected to tests and were considered safe. Does he honestly believe that the situation would have been any different if there had been a Food Standards Agency? Why is he casting aspersions on that agency in respect of environmental issues which will not be within the agency's proposed remit?

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Lady has herself now explained that the agency will not help to allay the fears of those consumers who are worried about eating food with GM ingredients. I have said that that food passed the tests


that were available at the time it was approved, but many consumers are nevertheless concerned about eating it. My question is what the Food Standards Agency could do to help that situation. I believe that it could do nothing at all.
As for the environmental dangers, I believe that the agency should be able to consider the environmental consequences of GM crops. Organic farmers are very concerned about the possible impact on the integrity of their crops. Their concern arises directly from the planting of GM crops in their neighbourhood, and it is connected to people's concerns about the food that they buy. If the Food Standards Agency is supposed to be about making food safer, it should recognise that those environmental concerns could be relevant.
On the two tests of the Belgian food scare and GM crops, the Food Standards Agency will fail in its primary aim. Indeed, the more carefully the Bill is analysed, the more it looks like a device for protecting Ministers rather than consumers. Substantial changes to the Bill are needed to make the agency an effective guardian of consumer interests, to prevent the agency from placing British farmers at an even greater competitive disadvantage than they currently are, and to make the agency sufficiently independent of Ministers to command public confidence.
Let us consider the question of imports. More than a fifth—perhaps almost a third—of the food consumed in Britain is imported, but the Bill does not make it clear how the agency will scrutinise those imports. Most of the sweeping powers that the Bill will give the agency can be exercised only in Britain. Does the agency create any additional safeguards for consumers against risks that may arise from eating food grown outside Britain? Will not the agency simply focus on the farmers, processors and distributors in Britain, so that eggs produced at home will be more carefully monitored and pigmeat produced at home subject to ever more regulation? Meanwhile, imports will carry on as before.
Why do the Government believe that British-grown food must be checked in ways not necessary for food produced abroad? Why is the Minister so determined to discriminate against British farmers? Take for example the poor old beef farmer, who still cannot export any beef because of the Government's failure to implement the conditions attached to the ending of the export ban. Last November, the Minister basked in the praise when he announced the end of the export ban, but seven months later, not an ounce of beef has been exported from the British mainland. British beef farmers still suffer from the gratuitous blow to confidence in their product that resulted from the extraordinary ban on beef on the bone.
Costs are forcing slaughterhouses to close and are reducing prices available to livestock farmers. To add insult to injury, the British Government—alone in the European Union—want to feed hormone-fed US beef to British consumers, even though British farmers cannot use the same hormones. If the Government want to justify the agency as it is proposed, they must show either that imported food has received the same degree of scrutiny as home-grown food, or that they have reason to require British farmers and food processors to pass stricter tests than those in, say, Thailand.

Mr. Paterson: On the point of closures due to excessive regulation and regimes that are not applied on

the continent, the pig processing plant at Malton, one of the largest in the country, was closed last week. That firm's holding company will now import less-well-regulated meat from the continent. What is the advantage to the British consumer in that?

Mr. Yeo: Clearly, there is no advantage, as my hon. Friend implies. Rather, there is a disadvantage to British consumers, and to British farmers. Each time a British producer goes out of business, it is likely that more food will be imported, some of which will come from producers who do not meet the same standards as British farmers.
The agency's inability to scrutinise imports leads to the next area of concern. Food labelling is becoming a matter of intense anxiety. Consumers are sold items labelled as British that were grown in any country except Britain, and by methods prohibited here. Nothing on the label on the food has to warn them about that.
For example, meat and bonemeal from British cows cannot be used by British chicken and pig farmers. Instead, such products go abroad, to be used by French and Belgian chicken and pig farmers, whose chickens and pigs are then imported back into this country. What could the Food Standards Agency do about that? Could it at least warn consumers on the labels of products made from those meats and imported from countries where meat and bonemeal is still used that that is the case?
Of course, retailers and producers make voluntary efforts to tackle the inadequacy of our labelling. The assured British meat scheme operated by the Meat and Livestock Commission is a good example. However, too many food products are still being bought by British consumers in complete ignorance of the country of origin and the method of production. When will the Minister address that problem? How many British livestock farmers must go bust before the Government act?
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) pointed out, the consequence is that more food is being imported. Will the Minister say what efforts he has made in the 11 months that he has been in his job to persuade the European Union to introduce a Europe-wide system of labelling? Such a system would require every food item to show the country in which the food was grown, and the method by which it was produced.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time, but did not the previous Government—of whom he was a member—resist all attempts to label GM foods? Did they not also resist calls to put pressure on the Americans to label GM soya?

Mr. Yeo: Am I right in thinking that the Prime Minister was in favour of nuclear disarmament when he first entered the House and that he opposed every attempt to introduce trade union reforms? Did he not also oppose every privatisation, which the Government now support? Is the hon. Lady seriously saying that, even though circumstances change, politicians should adhere rigidly and ignorantly to every view that they have ever held?
Public concern about genetically modified crops has grown immeasurably in the past two and half years. This Government have been disgracefully lax in not responding to consumers' anxiety.

Joan Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: No, I must make progress.
Consumers who wish to support high standards of animal welfare cannot do so at present. Those who wish to avoid eating food with genetically modified ingredients cannot do so. How will the Food Standards Agency address their concerns? The information that consumers require should be an integral part of preserving high food standards.
I turn now to the Food Standards Agency board. The relevant background involves the recent appointment of the board of the Countryside Agency, which contains scarcely any members with direct experience of mainstream farming. Clause 2 refers to
the desirability of securing that a variety of skills and experience is available among the members of the Agency".
It specifies two types of experience, which are to be
in matters related to food safety or other interests of consumers".
Do the Government consider that farmers, or others with experience of food production, should be represented on the board? If the Government believe that a vegetarian is the right person to be responsible for Welsh farm matters at a time when Welsh livestock farmers face the worst crisis for a generation, the agriculture industry is right to worry about the possible composition of the Food Standards Agency board.
The process for appointing board members reinforces those worries. One member is to be appointed by the Welsh Assembly, two are to be appointed by Scottish Ministers, and another is to be appointed by the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland. The others are to be appointed by the Secretary of State—presumably, the Secretary of State for Health, although the Bill does not say so.
There is therefore a mixture of methods of appointment—by elected politicians in Wales, by Government Ministers in Scotland, and by civil servants in Northern Ireland. The Bill also provides for Scotland to have as many as a quarter of board members, which continues Labour party policy of discrimination against England. As Labour did especially disastrously in England in the recent European elections, I fear that that tendency will continue.
The Bill provides also for the compulsory establishment of advisory committees for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Why are those committees needed? If they are really needed, why is one not needed for England? Can it be that there are still some Labour cronies in Wales and Scotland not yet on the public payroll?
The same pattern emerges in clause 3, which provides for the appointment of directors. Predictably, there are to be directors for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not one for England. The seventh guiding principle in the White Paper states:
In its decisions and actions, the Agency will aim to achieve clarity and consistency of approach.
How does that discrimination fulfil that principle?
Finally, I turn to the aspect of the agency that will be at the heart of its success or failure—its ability to act independently of the Government. The agency's value will depend on its being regarded by the public as independent and objective, with the ability to give decisions and advice that are authoritative and taken without political pressure. The White Paper said that the agency would be at "arm's length from Government", but clause 6 requires the agency to do whatever Ministers ask it to do. Clause 17 insists that nothing that the agency does in relation to a food emergency prevents the Secretary of State from taking action. Presumably, that is to give the Government the power to reverse, for political reasons, decisions taken by the agency.
In the final analysis, the agency is at risk of remaining simply at the beck and call of Ministers. Its freedom to act independently is no greater than that of any existing body or individual. The Secretary of State controls the agency's budget, appoints its board and, under clause 24, has the power to dismiss the board and take over its role.
Given that Ministers already feel the need to filter advice about food from the chief scientific adviser, the Bill hardly inspires confidence that the interests of consumers will come before those of Ministers. Indeed, the agency's lack of independence raises other problems.
Clause 6 requires the agency to provide
advice, information and assistance … to any public authority",
but not to publish that advice. Clause 8 requires the agency to obtain and review information about food safety and to monitor the relevant scientific developments, but not to publish the information. Clause 23 requires the agency to assess the risk to public health in a given situation, but not to publish that risk assessment. Clause 19 allows the agency to publish certain information, but, given the Government's reluctance to reveal information on matters such as genetically modified crops, there can be little confidence that openness and transparency will rule, particularly as clause 19(7) allows the Government to use subordinate legislation to prevent the publication of any information. There is a huge potential for Labour to indulge its control freak tendencies.
The Bill falls far short of honouring the claim in the ministerial foreword to the White Paper that the agency
will be free to publish any of the advice it provides".
A Government who use civil servants to try to find supposedly independent scientists to appear on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 cannot be trusted to respect the independence of the Food Standards Agency.

Mr. Nick Brown: This is a pretty appalling contribution. It takes a lot for me to say that, because I have tried to deal with the issue in a neutral way. For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that the agency will be free to publish whatever material it wants.

Mr. Yeo: In that case, I look forward to the Minister accepting some of the amendments that we shall table. I am sorry that the Minister thinks that it is appalling for the Opposition to raise concerns about how the agency will scrutinise imported food or about the inadequacy of the present labelling laws, which keep consumers in the dark about how the animals from which their food was produced were kept. I do not think that it is appalling for us to raise what are matters of grave concern to


British consumers, British farmers and British food retailers. If the Minister thinks that it is, he will go on being appalled for many months.
Not only will the agency be subject to ministerial control and interference, but it will be given powers to monitor the work of elected local authorities and force them to publish any criticisms that it may make. Schedule 3 allows the Minister to direct the agency to take over the functions of an elected local authority on food and hygiene standards, monitoring and enforcement. Is that what the White Paper meant when it said that the agency would operate at "arm's length from Government"? Is it not further proof that the agency will be an extension of ministerial power?
The Conservative party supports the principle of a Food Standards Agency, but we believe that only an agency established in a manner that will command public confidence and that is genuinely independent of the Government will offer an improvement on the present arrangements and will be able to address public concerns. The Opposition will not vote against Second Reading, but we shall seek to amend and improve the Bill in Committee and on Report. I trust that the Government will be open-minded.

Dr. David Clark: I welcome the Bill and I am delighted that it is called the Food Standards Bill, not the Food Safety Bill. It is important to have a wider generic view of the issue. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill and on succeeding in doing so during this Session. At one point, we thought that that would not be possible. I am delighted that he has found the time, because this is a very important Bill.
I pay tribute to Philip James, who is the author of the Bill. In the 1980s, he helped the Labour party to draw up similar proposals. In the late 1980s, when I led for the Opposition, I called for a Food Standards Agency and was ridiculed by the Conservative Government. I am delighted that the Conservative Opposition support the Bill and will seek, in their view, to improve it. I welcome that conversion.
We have waited a long time for the Bill. If the Conservative Government of the late 1980s and early 1990s had established an agency along the lines that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has advocated, many of the food scares and incidents would have been minimised. If there had been more openness, more independence and more of an arm's length approach to the handling of food scares such as salmonella, E. coli, campylobacter, BSE and Chernobyl, the public would have had much more confidence. They were not just food scares, they were incidents in which people died.

Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley): Has my right hon. Friend been following the BSE inquiry and seen the number of examples of the secrecy that surrounded the crisis? This is not a cheap jibe, because one of my constituents died of CJD.

Dr. Clark: One of the incidents that has convinced me of the need for legislation on freedom of information and

a Food Standards Agency is the BSE affair. Not only have I been following the inquiry, I have been invited by Justice Phillips to give evidence, and I have done that. If we had had an arm's length organisation, not only would there be public confidence, but politicians might have been saved embarrassment. Way back in April 1986, the then Minister of Agriculture, with all the good faith in the world, said that the problems relating to Chernobyl would be over by the weekend. Thirteen years later, there are still restricted farms in Scotland, Wales and the north of England. I do not blame the then Minister. I am merely saying that the advice that he was given was not adequate to meet the problem. Politicians from all parties have lost the confidence of the public on food safety and standards. Some of the gimmicks that Ministers have perpetrated, including feeding hamburgers to children, were not a clever way to get across to people that they were in charge of a situation and knew what they were doing.
The Food Standards Agency will preserve the democratic ethos, but remove the best scientific advice on food safety to arm's length. That is a step forward. The agency must wrestle with the problems that the hon. Member for South Suffolk raised about genetically modified food. We need the best scientific evidence on that. We also need the best scientific advice on bovine somatotropin, which we argued against when we were in opposition. The information must be in the public domain. A non-political Food Standards Agency containing a mixture of professionals and lay persons is the best way forward.
There are two prerequisites if the agency is to be the success that we all want. The first is that it should have the best scientific advice. Secondly, and just as importantly, there must be greater openness and transparency than there has been in the past. I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said that the general presumption would be for transparency and openness. If those are his watchwords, this will be very effective legislation. The Bill fits hand in glove with the Freedom of Information Bill, which we shall soon consider.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk raised several pertinent points—it was the one section of his speech that was pertinent—about the agency's openness and transparency. Clauses 19 and 22 clearly state what the position should be. Clause 22 provides for
securing that records of its decisions, and the information on which they are based, are kept"—
this is critical—
and made available with a view to enabling members of the public to make informed judgments about the way in which it is carrying out its functions".
That is a good statement of intent.
In considering that, we must ask several questions. Will the same remit apply to the advisory committees of the Food Standards Agency? In the past, some of the advisory committees that advise the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture have been too secretive for their own good and have not helped the cause of food standards and safety.
I want to consider statutory bars. Clause 19 of the Freedom of Information Bill stops the publication of information whose publication is prohibited under other legislation. More than 200 Acts of Parliament prohibit such releases of information. I hope that my right


hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will engage with the Home Secretary on the Freedom of Information Bill to ensure that the statutory bars in the Food Standards Bill are reduced to the absolute minimum. That is very important.
Will my right hon. Friend also ensure that the public interest test in clause 19(3), which is a good one, fits with the prejudicial test in the Freedom of Information Bill? It is important that the most liberal interpretation of the public interest is followed.
I welcome this very important Bill. I spent many years arguing for it in opposition and chaired the Cabinet Committee responsible for drawing it up. It has widespread support, not only among consumers, but among the more enlightened producers. If we get the Bill right, we can rebuild trust with our citizens. There is a prospect of building consensus with the farmers and producers of our good-quality British food. In the end, the issue will be transparency and accountability. I believe that we will get arm's length, best scientific advice, but the Government must be open about it, because, if people find that something to do with food safety and standards has been covered up, they will think that much more will be covered up. In welcoming the Bill and congratulating my right hon. Friend, I urge him to stick by his watchwords that the general presumption is for openness and transparency.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and hope to respond to some of his thoughtful points. First, I declare an interest. My wife is a director, and I a shareholder, of a traditional grocer's shop in Cornwall that sells wonderful Cornish speciality food. It is owned by the Duke of Cornwall, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. The House will realise that it is, therefore, a high-quality establishment. That ends the commercial. I have always regarded declarations of interests as good advertisements.
We welcome the Bill. We could hardly do anything else because we have campaigned for it for many years under successive Governments. We believe that the Government have taken an important step to meeting some of the concerns to which the right Member for South Shields referred. The mismanagement and misinformation that have surrounded the controversies over BSE, the many E. coli outbreaks and the clandestine development of genetically modified foods over many years—to which Labour Members have already referred—should surely give us cause for welcoming the Bill. Despite what the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), told us, the previous Administration failed lamentably to meet public concerns on such issues. I welcome his conversion. The Member for hindsight is welcome to the House this afternoon; I just wish it had been foresight.
If this body is to be effective, it must deal with the whole food chain from plough to plate. As the recent food scare in Belgium showed, such matters cannot be contained in a national framework because they are international, and the European Union has an important role to play. I want to illustrate the implications of the Belgian scandal for internationalism, for the need for very accurate information, including accurate and informative

labelling, and for the role of the media by drawing attention to a report in The Daily Telegraph last week that Sainsburys has been selling butter, labelled as English, that contains Belgian butter. I hope that the Government can say whether that is true, but it shows both the importance of good information and how far international issues can impinge on the confidence of the British public in the food given to us.
I very much welcome the way in which the Bill has been handled and the consultation on the draft Bill. Most importantly, I welcome how it was used, very appropriately, as a pilot for finding out whether the ideas of the Modernisation Committee on Special Committees would be effective. I know that all hon. Members who served on it, and I think the House generally, found it a worthwhile exercise. I hope that it will be repeated with similar legislation. The Bill has evolved as a result, and Ministers are right to take credit for listening to people inside and outside the House and to the Agriculture Committee.
The most obvious U-turn is on the levy, the so-called food poll tax. All hon. Members will welcome that change of heart. I pay tribute to the Minister of Agriculture for realising that it would have been patently unfair to implement a flat-rate charge on all retailers so that the small corner shop would have to fork out the same as the huge hypermarket down the road.
It is also an important advantage that the agency will therefore not be seen to be in the pocket of major food interests. I hope that the Minister who replies will tell us exactly where the additional cash will come from. Will it be from the Department of Health's budget and, if so, what will suffer? Will it come from the Minister of Agriculture's budget or has he, in his inimitable way, tied the arm of his namesake in the Treasury behind his back and extracted new money? If so, I pay him a genuine tribute.
The problem is that the public have perceived successive Governments as being too much in the pocket of the food industry. Supermarkets and big businesses have often enjoyed a cosy relationship with Whitehall. As we saw in the aftermath of the appalling BSE bombshell, the big abattoir owners had far too much influence over the immediate response of Ministers and civil servants. It will be important for the agency to demonstrate from the beginning that is quite separate from those interests. That is vital if the agency is to be credible in the public eye.
Much has been said this afternoon about the credibility of Ministers and advisers who give guidance to the public about food safety and nutrition. As Liberal Democrat agriculture spokesman in the last Parliament, I challenged the then Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), asking him whether he understood that, when he made a statement on television that a particular method of food production was perfectly safe, 75 per cent. of those watching and listening simply did not believe him. The situation has improved since the general election, but only slightly—I see the Minister of State nodding. We must recognise that, after a lack of credibility problem spanning decades, current Ministers and their advisers face a credibility gap. The right hon. Member for South Shields is absolutely correct: the only way to tackle that problem is through greater transparency.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the way to achieve transparency is to make the agency responsive and accountable to a Special Select Committee comprising members of the Health and Agriculture Select Committees. We regret that the agency will be firmly under the control of the Department of Health. That is the one major structural fault in the Bill, and I hope to return to that issue later. I notice that several Agriculture Ministers are on the Government Front Bench but no senior spokesmen from the Department of Health. As the agency will be that Department's baby in due course, I regret that those Ministers are not taking more interest in its health.
We could have brought together elements of agriculture, fishing, food processing, health and consumer expertise in a Special Select Committee of the House, modelled perhaps on the Public Accounts Committee and its special role of monitoring the work of the Audit Commission. That would have been a better way forward than this proposal.
I accept that it is crucial that the chairman, members and chief executive have no conflicting interests or connections in the food industry. I accept also that adopting the Irish version of the agency would have afforded better parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability. I will address that issue later.
Accountability and transparency are the core of the case for this agency. We must make real progress on the lamentable situation that prevailed during the previous Parliament. I notice that a wide range of organisations—from the Food and Drink Federation to the Tenant Farmers Association—have pinpointed that as the most important factor. For the sake of the reputation of British food and our confidence in it, the agency must have integrity to be credible.
The agency must not be some sort of giant bureaucratic liquidiser, which gathers huge amounts of information but has no clear strategy. If it mixes and swallows the interests of many different groups yet has no coherent strategy, there will be a real problem. I hope that the agency's strategy will recognise the tremendous value of the diverse food that we enjoy in Britain. For too long, food policy seemed to be aimed at protecting the largest food processors without recognising the interests of smaller specialist firms.
That is particularly true of the consultation upon which successive Governments embarked. It was much easier to talk to one or two big boys than get a feel for what is significant to the smaller operators. During 18 years of Conservative rule, ministerial consultation seemed always to proceed on the diktat that "big business knows best". Small food producers and low throughput abattoirs have been swamped by legislation that is geared more to the needs of huge organisations.
That has not occurred elsewhere in the European Union, so blaming Europe for that mind set seems irrational and misplaced. As many recent cases have shown—whether in the abattoir sector, the specialist cheese sector or the raw milk industry—huge bureaucratic sledgehammers have been used to knock the sectors into shape. As a result, we have lost the small producers' once-thriving contribution to the nation's food resources. That is a serious issue. As in the case of Duckett's

cheese—to which I have drawn attention several times in the House—I hope that lessons will be learned. The over-zealous activities of the hygiene police can rob us of products and processes that are valuable to our national life.

Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We could learn another lesson from our continental neighbours, on the role of co-operatives, which are much more important on the continent than in this country. They protect both producers and consumers, and I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's views—as a co-operative Member of Parliament—about how we can encourage the growth of co-operatives in Britain. That is an important step forward.

Mr. Tyler: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I endorse his remarks fully. We have failed in this country to direct the necessary investment from all levels of government to the development of the co-operative movement. A sad result is that competition in other European states between the co-operatives representing the primary producers and the big retailing giants is much more healthy and lively than competition in this country. When the report of the competition agency—I think that that is its new title—into the supermarkets is available to the House and when the investigation of the monopoly tendencies in milk retailing is concluded, I hope that there will be a real recognition of the important role of co-operatives in the future.
Let me revert to the way in which this measure will differ from previous legislation. It is remarkable to note that, in the past, officials seemed always to target the small producers. I cannot believe—it is simply not credible—that shortfalls and failures did not occur also among larger manufacturers and producers. It is clear that successive Governments often complicated matters by adding to the recipe passed to us from Brussels in the form of EU directives and, in the process, radically changing its essence. In many other European states, such as France and Holland, small specialist producers have gained artisan status. In so doing, they have qualified for a less bureaucratic and less rigorous imposition of regulation. They have not suffered the same regulatory nightmare that would ultimately put them out of business, but our specialist producers still suffer that overload.
The new agency must have a clarity of purpose that will put principle at its centre. For example, it cannot ignore its responsibility to keep the public informed about its activities. Through research, and through the total transparency and openness to which the right hon. Member for South Shields referred, I believe that it will be possible to regain the trust of consumers and producers. However, there are no half measures: the agency must be seen to provide all information and to withhold none. It must be seen to put all the evidence before the public rather than providing its own interpretation of the evidence. If it does not supply all the facts, it will quickly lose whatever credibility it has gained through its actions. The agency will be viewed with the same suspicion that the present system has attracted unless there is an evident sea change at its inception. That is why we believe that the agency must be free from vested interest from the top.
People have become increasingly concerned about the extent to which quangos operate behind closed doors. That has been true ever since the previous Conservative Government allowed many quangos to flourish.
When Professor James was first asked to draw up proposals for a Food Standards Agency in early 1997, he envisaged a body that would examine the entire food issue. Such a body would have powers of access regarding auditing, surveillance and enforcement from plough to plate. There was an acceptance that food touches on a variety of interests across the fields of agriculture, the environment and even trade. As is apparent from the problems with which the World Trade Organisation has grappled recently, trade will become increasingly important.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk was entirely correct to say that the public must be reassured that imports—which constitute 30 per cent. of the food we consume—are treated in the same way as home-produced goods. There must be an absolutely level playing field. I wish that had been the case under the previous Conservative Government; for example, my efforts to persuade Ministers in that Government to attack the problem of the import of substandard pork and pigmeat products fell on deaf ears. I am glad that the Labour Government are at least listening, although progress is mighty slow.
The draft legislation that developed from Professor James's report covered a remit that was somewhat shrunken from that which he originally intended. However, after the consultations, we have now developed a wider remit, and that is helpful. Of course, the central principle of the agency is that of food safety; its primary role is to ensure that food is placed on our plate in a safe condition. That means that the food must be produced, handled, transported, packaged and even sold with the minimum risk of contamination.
However, I am glad that we are now moving beyond that core responsibility. There is not a great difference between what is safe and what is healthy—or perhaps there should not be a great difference. If we move along a continuum from one to the other, we adopt a more realistic attitude to the whole of food production. A fried breakfast may be safe to eat—that is, free from contamination—but it is not necessarily healthy. If it is eaten in such quantity that it causes serious damage to a middle-aged male like me, that is clearly a real problem.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Tyler: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who is the epitome of that problem.

Mr. Maclean: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I sometimes eat a fried breakfast—very occasionally. Does he not realise that no foods are unhealthy in themselves and that it is our unhealthy diet about which we should be concerned? It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to talk about moving from safe foods to healthy foods. It is the overall balance of what we do—the exercise that we take and the foods that we eat—that we should be concerned about, not individual foods that he may perceive as being bad for us.

Mr. Tyler: I am surprised to find that I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Of course he is right;

what is important is not the individual elements, but their combination. The balance between those different elements is extremely important.

Ms Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: I want to make some progress, as I know that many hon. Members want to speak.
Clause 1(2) sets out that the agency will have a role in regard to nutrition and diet. That is right, and balance is part of that role. Before I was re-elected to this place, I was an adviser to the Meat and Livestock Commission, and I had a discussion with an expert nutritionist after he had presented some information to a wider audience. I asked him to give me the real answer. That eminent doctor gave me the league table of importance in relation to diet and health. He said, "First, choose your parents with care". That was at the top of the list. Secondly, a long way down the list, came stress. He said that one was far more likely to damage one's health from worrying about diet than from the diet. The next factor was smoking—I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border indulges. Diet comes a long way down the list. That is absolutely true.
However, equally, it is true that, for some people, at some times, the elements of their diet are extremely important. That presents us with a real dilemma, and we must not dodge it. We must get the balance right. Some of those who responded to the Agriculture Committee pointed out the narrowness of the borderline. For example, the evidence of Marks and Spencer stated:
Some of the media response to the recent COMA report shows how easily health advice can he rejected as interference by the 'Nanny' state. The Food Standards Agency must not be allowed to jeopardise its credibility in this way.
That is a balanced statement. However, it will not be an easy matter and, on occasions, we shall criticise the agency for being too prescriptive and too firm in its advice and for not being sufficiently flexible, or willing to accept that a balance is required. It is right that the Bill makes no attempt to separate food safety from food quality or from food standards. There is a continuum, and we are right to realise that.
For the agency to be acknowledged as the leading authority in its field, its research must be fundamental. The agency must lead the debate on a wide range of issues—from contaminants and zoonoses to novel foods. The problem is that, under the current proposals, the research budget is insufficient to fulfil that important task. That concern has already been addressed by such authorities as Professor Hugh Pennington and Professor Tim Lang. As Ministers have been so successful in extracting additional funds from the Treasury to pay for the agency, I hope that the continuing research programme will also be properly resourced, to ensure that it keeps ahead of the game. In the past, notably in respect of genetically modified foods, it was clear that the funds—the resources and investment—for the development of novel foods were much greater than those available for monitoring and surveillance. We must try to redress that balance.
The agency will not be able to define its own research agenda for the first three years. That is hard to justify and I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will be able to explain why that is so.

Mr. Rooker: I will explain now. Most research projects are on a three-year rolling programme, which is


reviewed from time to time. A few weeks ago, the joint food safety and standards group, which is the embryo of the agency—we are not working on a green-field site—published the programme for the bids for food research that will start next year. We agreed that programme with the group; it is its programme. In effect, that is the embryo of the Food Standards Agency making its first decision. We said that those would be the first research projects under the aegis of the agency—assuming that the legislation is passed. I ask the House not to divorce the agency—as a body that does not exist in any shape or form—from current practice. It does have control over the beginning of the research programme.

Mr. Tyler: I appreciate the Minister's point. All I am saying is that I hope that, as soon as the agency is up and running, if it is as good as we think that it will be, it will be realised that its authority depends on being able to feed into that research programme as soon as possible. I hope that it will respond to some of the new information that will be available.
In the Prime Minister's statement earlier, he referred to the views expressed at the Cologne summit about the role that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development might play in respect of genetically modified organisms. In the past, the Minister of State has pointed out that the Government were not in the driving seat in relation to the surveillance, monitoring and development of GMOs. I hope that the agency will enable Ministers to be in the driving seat in future.
However, at the end of the day, the FSA will be judged by its actions—how quickly it reacts to the first food crisis or how it responds to media scares.

Mr. Paterson: What is the Liberal Democrat party's position on the Government's refusal to adopt the recommendation of the Food Standards Committee that the Meat Hygiene Service's executive direction should be set aside from the Food Standards Agency, so that, when the first meat scare occurs, the FSA's independence and integrity will be upheld?

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman comes rather late to the discussion. Perhaps he does not realise that, in the previous Parliament, it was the Conservatives who insisted on—

Mr. Paterson: I was not a Member of the House then.

Mr. Tyler: That is why the hon. Gentleman does not realise what happened. Perhaps he should wait until he has done so before he makes a contribution to the debate. The MHS was extensively opposed by Labour and Liberal Democrat spokesmen—including me—for reasons similar to those given by the hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, the service has been shown to be a rather expensive and ineffective instrument of Government policy. I very much regret the apparent conflict that may well occur; I hope that we shall examine that matter in Committee.

Ms Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: I am trying to come to a conclusion. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be successful in contributing to the debate later.
The quickness of the FSA's response to that first crisis—which will undoubtedly occur—will be extremely important. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating—especially regarding the FSA's response to the problems of imports from countries with quite different standards of supervision, regulation and welfare in production. That will be a test for the agency at an early stage.
We should be aiming to create a comparatively small strategic organisation that has great clarity of purpose and principle. Obviously, the local inspector will have to be the first point of contact for producers and processors. The industry must have confidence that such inspectors, whether from the Meat Hygiene Service or any other part of the new regime, will bring a high degree of professionalism, discretion and common sense to their work. As we all know, in the abattoirs at the moment, that is far from so. The inspectors are grossly overloading the operators.
This Bill comes to the House with some all-party support. Indeed, one would think from this afternoon that we had all invented it—some of us earlier than others. At least we can hope that bringing about a radical cultural change in the way in which the Government react to food issues will have many godparents. We should be confident that this baby, assuming that it has a healthy diet, will grow into the long-awaited legislative young body that could eventually become a very sturdy statute, fulfilling a long and useful life. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we wish it every success.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am delighted that the Government are establishing a Food Standards Agency. I pay tribute to the dedicated staff in my constituency who work on the difficult problems of BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The Bill is very welcome. It should silence the critics who said that such legislation would be buried or neutered. The key reason for establishing the Food Standards Agency is to rebuild consumer confidence in our farmers' produce and the food that we buy in our shops and markets.
I praise my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for their decision not to impose a levy to pay for this vital public service. They said that they would listen, and they have listened. The BSE crisis drove many retailers to the wall. For the excellent butchers in my constituency—many of the businesses have been in the family for generations—a levy would have been, not financially but certainly psychologically, the last straw.
Some items of the Bill require clarification. On several occasions, Ministers have said that they appreciate the importance of ensuring that the FSA board is independent from commercial vested interests, but that is not explicit in the Bill—welcome though clause 2 is. Some argue that the board ought to include representatives from a wide spectrum of interests, including consumers, farmers, the processing and retailing industry and, of course, science; but there is public concern that, when commercial interests intrude on policy making on food safety and standards, there is always a risk that the interests of the consumer will be subordinated to those of industry.
That is why there is a strong case for not putting direct representatives of the food industry on the board of the FSA. The Government of Ireland have adopted such a


model for their new food safety authority, which they want to earn widespread public support and trust. If the board includes people from industry, the clear principle that such representatives can never be in the majority must be established. Nothing less will restore public confidence in Government food policy.
The consultation document refers to nutrition, but the Bill does not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said. Surely, whenever the terms "food safety" or "food standards" are used in the Bill, the words "and nutrition" should be inserted. That would ensure that the FSA undertakes a balanced approach to food policy—a vision suggested, indeed, in clause 6. Although nutrition will be part of the FSA's remit, the Bill fails to make clear exactly what is meant by "nutrition". The Bill should therefore be modified to clarify the sense in which the term "nutrition" is used and the FSA's responsibilities in respect of it.

Mr. Rooker: I am reluctant to intervene on my hon. Friend, but I might help to clarify the debate. In "The Food Standards Agency: a Force for Change", published in January 1998, about three dozen aspects of nutrition were set out. Some of them were designated as the exclusive remit of the Department of Health, some of the Food Standards Agency, and some of both. That remains the position. It is set out in substantial detail in three columns of the White Paper. That is exactly the way things will operate; there has been no change since the publication of the White Paper.

Mr. Griffiths: I greatly welcome the assurance that my hon. Friend has given me and the House. It will be widely welcomed elsewhere.
The House will be aware of important changes in recent months to the research capacities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Central Science Laboratory in Norwich and the agricultural laboratory have been merged and are now based in York. I welcome the new agency's ability to commission research, as it can under clause 8, but it must have a substantial research budget in order to develop commissioning procedures different from those already used in MAFF.
As I understand it, the proposals envisage a research budget for the FSA of £25 million in the first year. However, that figure appears to have been derived from the portion of MAFF spending that has been ascribed to "food", rather than from an assessment of the requirements with which the FSA will be confronted. Obviously, we must wait and see what demands will be made on the new body, although I hope that that matter will be taken into account. The board of the FSA must have sufficient resources to enable it, if it wishes, to establish its own dedicated research facility.
The role of board members in directing and assessing the FSA's research agenda should be clarified in the Bill—certainly in Committee. I am worried that the FSA's integrity could be compromised by including the Meat Hygiene Service in its remit. If the FSA must set, monitor and enforce meat hygiene standards, there is a danger of undesirable compromises. In the face of the possible high costs of monitoring and enforcement, the new agency might be accused—probably unfairly—of watering down the standards that it sets in order to trim its budget. The responsibility for those two types of decision should

be separated. If I heard my right hon. Friend the Minister correctly, he identified another body—the Audit Commission—that would monitor such capacity. That is a welcome concession to concerns expressed in the Special Select Committee.
The Government could take advice from other Governments who have been through some of the same pain or who have avoided it by setting up their own agencies at an earlier stage. I think of the Swedish national food administration and, more recently, the Irish food safety authority. The Government should examine their entirely different methods of separating auditing and enforcement. The Swedes accomplish it through different local and national meat hygiene services; the Irish have retained their authority's integrity by making it responsible for setting standards, but have assigned responsibility for enforcement to local authorities. It is important that we learn the lessons from food agencies in other European Union countries and member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, such as Sweden, the United States of America, Germany, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand.
We must not forget the limitations on our freedom to set standards that the World Trade Organisation and the EU have imposed. Following completion of the general agreement on tariffs and trade round, which is to be launched in November, there are likely to be new WTO-GATT rules in the area of food standards. It is therefore vital that the Government clarify the FSA's competencies and powers with regard to bodies such as the EU and the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
Importantly, the concordats that the FSA reaches with other agencies will show how it will function, yet the Bill has little to say about them. It would be preferable if the Bill stipulated that all the concordats be routinely published and openly scrutinised by Parliament. I believe that the Special Select Committee should be asked to review such concordats, together with the other workings of the FSA. Concordats should be published and scrutinised before being signed.
There was praise for the guiding principles of the FSA as set out in the consultation document, but I wonder why some of them were not expressed in the Bill; all should be. [Interruption.] If the Minister of State is giving me and the House that assurance, I am sure that we shall welcome it.

Mr. Rooker: I give an assurance to my hon. Friend and an apology to the House. Every single one of those guiding principles is in the Bill. The snag is that, between publication of the White Paper and the guiding principles in plain English and publication of the Bill, there was a thing called the lawyers. The guiding principles are in the Bill. I shall serve on the Committee and I shall be in a position to identify where every guiding principle is covered in the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: That is another welcome statement from my hon. Friend. I am sure that those who serve on the Committee will relish his interpretation of the legal complications and language that have been substituted for the very plain English in the original consultation document.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Next.

Mr. Griffiths: Next and, I hope, finally, the regulation of all public health aspects of pesticides, veterinary


medicines and BSE should be transferred to the FSA. Agriculture policy on those issues should be made separately by agriculture divisions and directorates, but acting within a regulatory framework set by the FSA.
In introducing the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has done a great public service, for which United Kingdom consumers and producers will be immensely grateful. This Labour Government is establishing yet another landmark in legislation.

Mr. David Maclean: One of the few pleasures that I had after the general election two years ago was to listen to some of the speeches by the Minister of State.
Before the Minister has a panic attack, I assure him that I am not being facetious. I did have the pleasure of hearing him speak several times in the House, upstairs and before outside bodies, and it was wonderful to watch enlightenment dawn on him as he discovered that the officials in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Pesticides Safety Directorate and all other parts of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were perhaps not—as he might have supposed when he was in opposition—autocratic and uncaring for public safety.
On various occasions, I heard the Minister vigorously defend the independence, neutrality, impartiality and integrity of his MAFF officials. I have mentioned only two directorates, but I am fairly certain that if I were to ask him to name any part of his Ministry or of the Department of Health where he thought the officials were not doing a proper job and protecting public health, he could not do so. I suspect that, in the past nine months, the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture have quickly discovered that the officials with whom they have the privilege of working in MAFF are conscientious, are all trying to do their bit to give Ministers proper and intelligent advice, and are not engaged in a ghastly conspiracy with producers, retailers or anyone else to cover up food safety scares.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Surely the problem with the previous Government was that they received extremely good advice but ignored it.

Mr. Maclean: There is no truth in that whatsoever. We have the Minister of State's word for it, because there is an extract from Hansard which I keep in files close by me. It relates to the BSE situation. The Minister of State, defending the ban on beef on the bone, said that if Ministers had not implemented the beef on the bone ban, this would be the first occasion "in living memory" when Ministers had not followed the advice of their officials.
I believe that the only time I refused to follow the advice of my officials was towards Christmas one year, when I was asked to advise the housewife on how to stuff the turkey. I concluded that it would be unwise for me to issue that advice, because it would be patronising and insulting.

Mr. Rooker: I shall not argue over quotes from Hansard, but I know what I said that night. I said that it

would have been the first occasion when Ministers had knowingly allowed BSE infectivity into the food chain:
We will not be the first Government knowingly to put infectivity in the food chain."—[Official Report, 19 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1400.]
Later, I added:
The House should think about what the headlines would have been had we been the first Government knowingly to allow BSE infectivity into the food chain."—[Official Report, 30 April 1998; Vol. 311, c. 445.]
I am not saying that the previous Government did it the other way round, but they certainly went in unknowingly.

Mr. Maclean: That too is open to challenge. We may have to wait many months—or, at the present rate of progress, many years—before the inquiry reaches a conclusion on it.
However, I shall not conduct an argument along that route because I think that the Minister would still acknowledge that the advice that Ministers receive from officials is of the highest calibre, and that it did not suddenly change on 1 May 1997. I do not believe that officials gave Ministers in the previous Government duff advice and then thought, "My God—change of Government. We had better start giving proper advice." I make that point because the Minister of Agriculture said today that the new agency would do essentially what is being done now. I believe that that is exactly so.
I do not therefore say that the new agency will be merely cosmetic, but I see nothing fundamentally different about the research that the new agency will do, the advice that it will give, the problems that it will wrestle with and the difficulty of trying to explain the balance of risk to the public. The new agency will do nothing that officials in various directorates and divisions of MAFF and in the Department of Health are not currently doing.
What, then, is the purpose of the new agency? Probably, if the Labour manifesto had not promised to set up the agency, Ministers, with two years' experience of working with those Departments, would not now be promising one. But that is mere speculation. They have made the promise; they intend to deliver on it.
However, I envisage some of the effect of the agency as merely cosmetic: it will be to give the appearance that Ministers are being distanced from food safety decisions. The sole purpose of trying to institute the arm's length procedure is to try to give a new credibility to ministerial advice or advice from learned scientists on food safety.
The public have become entirely cynical about advice, whether it is on road safety matters from experts, whether it is from my friends down the road in Sellafield advising about nuclear safety, or whether it is from food scientists. There is a highly sceptical public—backed by an even more sceptical media, certain sections of which have a financial interest in keeping the public alarmed all the time. The public may not be reassured about the advice that the new agency gives.
I am worried that the agency might fail in some respects. It will fail not because it will deliberately endanger public health, because it will take ridiculous risks, or because it will be in a conspiracy with food producers to cover things up, but because it will not reach the high level of public expectation.
I have been reading a survey conducted by the Consumers Association. It welcomes publication of the draft Bill, as many other organisations have done. They have done so because they hope that it will be a brave new dawn—that the day the agency takes over, the "meeja", the press and the public will believe everything that it says about the high quality of our food. However, the Consumers Association said that its survey showed that the public's expectation of the FSA was unreasonably high. Ninety-seven per cent. of the people questioned wanted a guarantee from the FSA that food was safe. Of course people want that guarantee. They can never have it, under any Government or any agency, no matter whether the agency is stuffed with a million Philip Jameses or a million representatives of the food companies. It can never give that absolute guarantee.
My concern is that on the first occasion when there is a food safety problem, small or large, or when the Food Standards Agency has to say, "Well, we don't really know. It may be a new strain of cambylobacter. To err on the side of safety, perhaps we should withdraw some products, but we are not going to ban the lot," the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, The Sun and the others will say that the agency has failed—it did not clear the shelves and Ministers must intervene.
I see wry smiles on the faces of the Ministers. They know, and the House may admit, that on this occasion I may be right. The expectation that the agency will be a miracle cure-all for the problems of food safety is illogical. I understand the Government's difficulty. They cannot admit that the agency will not meet the public's expectations. They must present the agency as the fulfilment of an important manifesto pledge, and say that the wonderful new agency will do new things. The only new thing seems to be that it will publish ministerial advice. We did not do that—we published its effect and synthesised it into a more easily intelligible and readable leaflet.
The most difficult aspect of dealing with food standards, from my experience, is trying to explain risk. The problem is that in our daily lives we are all happy to take some voluntary risks. We all know about crossing the road—the risks are enormous, compared to the risk of dying from a food-borne illness. We take a huge range of risks and care nothing about them. As a Cumbrian Member of Parliament, I know that the number of people who die in the Cumbrian mountains each year is extraordinary by comparison with the number of people who participate in such sports, and high in relation to other types of accident; yet no one proposes to take drastic action to limit that activity.
When it comes to other risks, we have a very high expectation, for example, that food will be absolutely safe. We want someone out there to guarantee that we will not be subject to the slightest risk. That is an entirely illogical and unreasonable expectation, with which I wrestled as a Minister. I was not successful in trying to explain the balance of risk.

Ms Keeble: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that people who go walking in his area are usually fit, and that they are adults? Those who might eat contaminated food

include small babies, and the consequences could be catastrophic. It is wrong to contrast the two examples in such an unfavourable light.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady misunderstands my point. I used walking in the mountains as an example of risk, but I could have used dozens of other examples of risk that all of us, young and old alike, are willing to take. However, there are certain risks that we are not prepared to take, and we expect someone in authority—society, the Government, "them"—to do something about it and guarantee our absolute safety.
One of those risks relates to food. There is a public expectation and a media expectation that all food, at all times and in all circumstances, will be safe, no matter how incompetently we may deal with it in our own home. I take issue with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who intervened in the Minister's speech to suggest that intensive animal production was responsible for many of the present food safety problems. That is nonsense. As someone who has seen where free range eggs have lain and what they have lain in, I would never dream of eating one in a hundred years. I would prefer the battery version, purely on a food safety basis. That is quite different from animal welfare.
It is nonsense to suggest that such farm practices are responsible for the increase in salmonella and some of the other forms of food poisoning. We need to look at our food preparation practices and our sloppy handling of food.
I want to make a couple of other points, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you cut me off. The first concerns the appointment of independents. If Ministers can find someone who is genuinely independent, I shall be the first to stand up in the House and praise them, but I would bet that I could go through every appointment that they make to the board and say, "Aha! At some time that independent professor of nutrition or food science had a contract with Nestlé or some other company."
No one who is any good in food safety or scientific work has not at some time worked for a commercial company, the Consumers Association, the Rowett research institute or some such body. There is probably no one who is any good who has not published a pamphlet or leaflet on food safety, or his own theory, which some may perceive to be biased, on some aspect of food.
We do not want a futile search for people who are genuinely independent to serve on the board. If the Minister finds people who have never worked for a food company or a research organisation, they will be so dashed useless that they should not be on the board. We are looking for people who have a wide range of experience, but who do not have bees under their bonnet any more. If the Minister appointed someone from a research institution—even Professor James—and if he still had a bee in his bonnet about nutrition, I would not consider him independent. If he appointed the director of a food company who had a bee in his bonnet about stuffing more salt into food, I would not consider him independent.
The Minister must search for people who come from varied food backgrounds—food production, farming, processing, research, Government or academia. He must find those who can leave aside their personal interests—having declared them all, of course—and who do not have bees in their bonnet or preconceptions.
My other concern relates to nutrition. I fear that the agency will become too much of a nagging nanny on nutritional aspects. In that case, it is just as well that Government are putting it at arm's length, so that Ministers can dissociate themselves from the advice that it will give.
In the two years I was Food Minister, most of the expert advice that I issued, based on nutrition advice about red wine, olive oil, salt and sugar, was contradicted a few years later by the same scientist or others. I was told, "Minister, you must advise the whole country to move to a Mediterranean diet." "Very good," I said, "lots more red wine." "Oh no," they said, "eating oily fish." I replied, "Surely the other half is drinking red wine?" We must have balance in our diets.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on one point. If we are to tackle nutritional aspects, let us not start banning individual foods. Let us not tackle food first. Let us tackle the fact that we are too dashed idle. We do not exercise enough, and we need to deal with the problems of obesity and fitness before we start dealing with food.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. There I must cut off the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I approach Second Reading from the point of view of someone who chaired the Special Select Committee that considered the original draft legislation, as opposed to considering the Bill in its present form, which has changed greatly since we took it into Committee earlier this year. On 8 February, the House gave us responsibility for examining the draft legislation and reporting back to the House by 31 March. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that we thought that that was a tight timetable, as Ministers have recognised.
The Committee was drawn primarily from the Select Committee on Agriculture and the Select Committee on Health, with additional members from the parts of the United Kingdom to whose Parliament or Assembly power is being devolved. That power will include responsibility for food safety, and was one of the aspects that we considered.
From the outset we were joined, at our request, by officials of the joint food safety and standards group who had been working on the issue for many years and whom the Minister described earlier as the embryo of the Food Standards Agency, if it comes into being. We said in our report that we thought that their presence in the Room was a great strength, because we were able to question them on matters that arose when we were taking evidence from witnesses. That enabled us to clarify a situation without having to contact those witnesses by letter or some other means at a later stage. As the Chairman of the Committee it was interesting to see the expressions on those officials' faces when I asked for clarification of evidence on a couple of occasions.
I shall run through some of the matters that we looked at in detail, and on which we made recommendations, and the Government's response. Although the report was produced quickly to meet the timetable, it was detailed,

as was the response. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was absolutely right to discuss the membership of the Food Standards Agency. It is nonsense to say that people with no interest in the issues could be appointed; they will all have had an interest in an industry or in research.
The essential assurance that we got from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was that people will sit on the FSA as individuals, not as representatives of producers, consumers or anybody else. He said at the beginning of the debate that the Government want to strike a reasonable balance. They are absolutely right about that. The House and the country could not want for anything more than a reasonable balance and the appointment of individuals with opinions that have not been bought or distorted by what they have done in the past.
We also looked at health promotion, nutrition and labelling and the remit for nutrition and dietary advice. We have made some strong recommendations, and the Government have said that they have taken them on board and will consider the role of nutrition and dietary advice. In the general context, the Health Departments that now operate in different parts of the United Kingdom, which have wider responsibilities, are likely to pull together the aspects connected with public health. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border rightly said that that involves not only diet, but life style, exercise and many other things. It would be wrong to think that the Food Standards Agency could handle all that, but it could give good, clear guidelines to other organisations responsible for public health.
We also looked at labelling, and voluntary codes of practice are currently being established. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) considered labelling only in terms of where food comes from; country of origin is important, but so are the contents. It is hard for consumers to work out exactly what percentage of fat an item contains. Normally, labels say that 100 g of a food contains certain percentages of X, Y and Z, but do not provide the percentage of fat in a given item chosen by the shopper. On occasions, people have to get a calculator out to work out exactly what they are purchasing. That area of the industry is driven by a European Union directive and the Government have said in their response to our report that the agency would be responsible for that matter, that it should make it a priority and that it should instigate action on labelling.
I should like clarification on how food advertising could mislead people into thinking that they were eating something healthy. Companies do not advertise a product as unhealthy, so they assure people that they are eating something healthy even though that may not be the case. Will the agency give evidence to the Advertising Standards Authority, for example, so that it will be able to decide whether such advertising is taking place? The Government said in their reply that the agency would work with other bodies, but they were not specific in respect of what the Committee asked.
On enforcement and monitoring, we made a recommendation on seconding people from local government who are responsible for day-to-day enforcement. I am pleased that the Government have accepted it. Those people would not represent a new army of food thought police, as has been suggested; they are people who are already working in our communities.
What type of contact should they have? How can the agency learn from their experience of enforcement in the community? The other side of the coin concerns the agency taking some responsibility for setting training standards for enforcement staff so that we can achieve more consistency. The Government have again responded positively by saying that the agency will do just that.
I have read the previous Agriculture Committee report on food standards and looked at evidence that has been submitted to different Committees of the House, and enforcement at local level differs from one local authority to another. That should concern us all and we should make sure that we work on such differences. Indicators are used to gauge whether auditing and monitoring is conducted properly by local authorities. Currently, such work tends to be carried out mechanistically—for example, the number of local authority visits made to food retail premises—and that is not necessarily a good way of working.
The Committee also considered output. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) asked whether we should start reporting more food poisoning cases, but most people would say that there is probably more food poisoning in this country than is reported and that if we improved our reporting everybody would become alarmed. Although output is important, it is not the only issue.
The Committee recommended multidisciplinary indicators and I am pleased that the Government have taken that suggestion on board. I sat down with my local authority and asked it how it works. It classifies risk from A to D; food outlets in band A are high risk and those in band D are low risk. We do not want authorities to say, "We have done two dozen visits this week, but they were all to band D establishments", because that would mean that high-risk establishments had been missed. In response to our suggestion, the Government have said that assessment under a national scheme will be qualitative as well as quantitative.
The Meat Hygiene Service has been mentioned several times. The Committee said:
We feel that on balance the best interests of the public would be served by retaining the management of the MHS outside the Agency.
If the Government does not accept this recommendation, then the onus is on the Government to establish a structure which clearly separates these powers within the Agency.
My right hon. Friend the Minister said today that that is exactly what the Government will do, and they said in their response:
Within this framework, the Government does intend to separate the audit function in relation to the MHS from its day-to-day operation.
Perhaps the Committee should have highlighted the fact that we think that it would be a good idea to carry out an independent review after two years of how the Meat Hygiene Service has operated inside the Food Standards Agency. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate I should like him to say whether he thinks that that is a good idea. Perhaps we should have put that recommendation on paper; nevertheless, it should be taken into account.
On the general issue of openness and accountability, as Chairman of the Committee, I am happy with what the Government have said. The draft Bill referred to safeguarding national security, which intrigued us—

we want accountability and openness to give consumers confidence in food in this country and to make the agency work. We took evidence and got the national security issues down to bacteriological terrorism or radioactive-contaminated sheep. We had not got down to vegetables of mass destruction, but nevertheless we were concerned that issues of national security would be covered by the Bill.
To the Government's credit, they have taken that responsibility out of the Bill. They say in response to our concerns that matters of national security must be taken into account in all legislation, and that is absolutely true, but all members of the Select Committee found that concept a little difficult in respect of this Bill. Perhaps it is a habit of Whitehall, rather than of politicians, to include issues of national security in legislation, but I am pleased that the Government have taken them out of the Bill.
The other issue that I want to raise is the advice given by expert committees. We looked at two committees in particular: the Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy Committee; and the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food. The agency will be responsible for monitoring those committees' activities; it will not subsume them. It will thereby get a wider picture of the food chain, which is also important.
I should like to think that we can claim a victory for having removed the levy proposed in the original legislation. The Select Committee did not recommend losing it completely, but pointed out the unjustness of the Government's proposal in relation to the flat-rate levy. Most people thought that it was not too damaging at £94 a year when it applied to start-up costs, but once it had to cover running costs followed by enforcement costs, which could have run to a much higher figure, they were concerned that that levy would increase. I am pleased that the Government listened to all sides, including hon. Members, and decided that the levy would be taken out of the Bill altogether. That is a great improvement. I am only sorry that I did not recommend it to the Select Committee in the final hours of our proceedings. On a personal note, the reason that I did not do so is that enforcement is rather like a patchwork quilt and I thought that if money was being raised for enforcement, it would at least be spent on that. Given what the Government said in response to many of our detailed points about enforcement and monitoring, I am confident that we can do that via the Exchequer. I once heard somebody say—not in formal evidence—that enforcement should be paid for by those with the biggest turnover. Given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the biggest turnover in the UK, he should be the one to pay, as he has now agreed.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned Select Committees. I accept that this is a matter for the House, not for Ministers. Given that this legislation will be the responsibility of the Department of Health, it should be considered by the Select Committee on Health. We also said that the House should consider convening a bigger Health Committee, which could split into a Sub-Committee that could look at food standards along with public health issues. That, however, will be a matter for the Department.
From our point of view as legislators, this exercise has been good. We have produced a unanimous report. Although not everybody has read it yet—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's time is up. I call Mr. Gill.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) because it gives me an opportunity to express the gratitude of the House for the work that his Select Committee has done on this important issue. It has been a good example to the House of how a Select Committee can be used constructively in advance of a Bill coming before the House and then proceeding to Committee. We should all be grateful to the Select Committee for that.
I preface my remarks by declaring my interest in the food industry, as listed in the Register of Members' Interests. I recall almost 10 years ago welcoming the Food Safety Act 1990. I was rash enough to go on record as saying that there was nothing in that Act to which any bona fide trader could possibly take exception. I had underestimated the scale of the powers that the Government had taken in that Act, which enabled them to do all sorts of things which many Back Benchers had not envisaged at the time. Therefore, I approach this debate having been once bitten; I am now twice shy.
Had I known that the immediate consequence of the 1990 Act was that enforcement officers would descend on the kitchens of so many farmers' wives in my constituency, forcing them completely to revamp their kitchens, unnecessarily in many cases, so that they could be permitted to continue to take bed and breakfast guests, I would have taken a different attitude and spoken up against the Bill. I am concerned about this Bill because, once again, the Government are taking extremely wide powers.
None the less, the Bill has the potential to do some good. Many aspects of it appear benign, but others are seriously worrying. Those include the power to enable the Food Standards Agency to become an enforcement agency, thereby potentially creating a food hygiene enforcement agency. Perhaps that is the forerunner of what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) called the hygiene police.
My concerns are twofold: I am concerned, first, that the Government are taking powers that they do not need and, secondly, that they are compromising some of the potential to do good by getting involved in enforcement. On my first concern, one is reminded, even today on the radio, of the need that the Government have defined to cut down on regulation. The Minister will be well aware of what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said on that subject. The Government also say that they do not intend to centralise—indeed, they say that they want to decentralise—but that argues against the Food Standards Agency taking enforcement powers that should remain with local authorities.
I am not alone in expressing concern that an unelected agency will have potentially huge powers over elected local authorities. Clause 21 says:

The Agency has power to do anything".
It is extraordinary to state in a Bill that the Government give themselves powers to do anything. The Minister will doubtless come to the Dispatch Box later and justify that statement, but it is a pretty tall order. When he does so, will he explain why the Government think that they have to take all those powers at this stage to deal with the perceived problem?
This is where we get ourselves into a terrible tangle. It is no good the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry complaining about over-regulation, too much legislation and so on if Ministers of State take such draconian powers, for which there is no justification. Clause 32 permits changes of functions, powers and the constitution of the Food Standards Agency, not by coming to this House with a new Bill, but simply by Orders in Council. Again, one questions why the Government feel that it is so important to take all those powers without feeling it necessary to come to the House and formally seek extra powers through an additional Bill.
As an aside, may I suggest to the Minister that the civil servants may be harnessing the public concern that undoubtedly exists about food safety to take powers that they would like to see because it is administratively convenient to them to have a whole galaxy of powers, used or unused, to which they can resort at some stage in the future? It is always open to the Government to come back for additional powers. What is more to the point, it is no part of my function as a Back Bencher and it is not the role of Parliament to give the Executive carte blanche on this or any other subject.
My other concern is that the potential of the Bill to do good is compromised. Clause 7 gives the Food Standards Agency powers to advise, inform and help; clause 8 gives it powers to obtain, compile and keep information; clause 10 enables it to carry out observations; and clause 12 allows it to monitor the performance of enforcement authorities. That sounds innocuous, and I do not think that any hon. Member would take objection to that. However, when we come to schedule 3 the mask falls, and we see that the Government are increasing their powers over and above what many of us believe is necessary. We have to read page 37 of the explanatory notes to discover that the Meat Hygiene Service, which is an enforcement agency, will become part of the Food Standards Agency.
I shall be a little critical of the Minister, because it was disingenuous of him to make so much of the motherhood and apple pie aspects of the Bill in his opening remarks. It was only after questioning by me that he revealed that the FSA will be in the business of enforcement. He confessed that the Meat Hygiene Service will come under the direct aegis of the FSA.
I shall make a few important points about bringing the enforcement agency inside the FSA, which most of us would have preferred to be a monitoring and advisory body without enforcement responsibilities. In carrying out its enforcement responsibilities, the Meat Hygiene service has taken several cases to court that it has lost—that is a matter or fact, and is on the record. Many people in the industry felt that those cases were bogus, but nevertheless the Meat Hygiene Service, in a rather high-handed manner, took various traders to court, and in many cases it lost. That brings the MHS into disrepute, and I shall show how I believe embodying or embracing that


enforcement agency in the FSA risks bringing the FSA into disrepute. There is a real danger that the credibility of the new body will be compromised even before it has hardly started.
Yesterday, by coincidence I met and talked to the owner of an abattoir in Shropshire. The vet had made various criticisms of the operation of the abattoir. He had thought that two carcases were bovine when they were in fact porcine. The vet had examined two pig carcases and castigated the abattoir owner for not having split the carcases so that the spinal column could be removed. I believe my informant, because I have known this man all my life, and I know that he was telling me the truth. We have all heard that story from other sources anyway.
I fear that, if the Meat Hygiene Service becomes closely connected with the Food Standards Agency, as the Bill proposes, the FSA will become the focus for the opprobrium and ridicule that currently accompanies the MHS.
There is a catalogue of enforcement agency failures above and beyond those for which the Meat Hygiene Service is responsible. I particularly instance the E. coli outbreak in Lanarkshire, where the sheriff concluded that the enforcement authorities had failed to do their bit. The question that hangs in the air is whether that outbreak would have occurred had the enforcement authorities been doing their job as they should have been. That begs the question whether we need a Food Standards Agency as well as the enforcement authorities if there is a dramatic improvement in certain aspects of their actions.
I believe that taking powers to act as an enforcement agency, as the Bill proposes, will undermine the impartiality and the integrity of the FSA. It should confine itself to setting and monitoring standards. Furthermore, how can local authorities trust an agency that is setting and monitoring standards, and can take over from local authorities those same duties and responsibilities? The proposal for the FSA to be the enforcement agency is contrary to the Government's stated aims and objectives. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will seek to remedy those deficiencies by tabling appropriate, sensible, practical and well-informed amendments in Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) warned of the risk of failure because expectations of what the FSA can achieve are being raised. He was right that no one, not even the scientists, will say that anything and everything is safe. It is hypocritical of the Government to say that, if the risk is infinitesimal, genetically modified foods should be allowed on to the market, whereas when they were in opposition they pilloried the Conservative Government, who would not say that beef was 100 per cent. safe. The Conservative Government could not have said that, and the Government know that. It is total hypocrisy for the Government to go on raking over the coals of BSE when they know that their criticism and their continued insistence on beef being proved to be 100 per cent. safe had an adverse effect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is right that there is a real risk that expectations are being built up too high. I urge the Government to accept amendments in Committee to improve the FSA's prospects of success.

Mr. Frank Roy: I welcome the Bill, and I am glad to be able to take part in this important debate. The Bill is of significance to the people of the United Kingdom, but more importantly, the people whom I represent have looked forward to it with great emotion.
On Sunday 17 November 1996, a frightening blight descended on the town of Wishaw when 85 elderly people attended a lunch in Wishaw old parish church hall. It is an ordinary church hall in an ordinary town, and the lunch was attended by ordinary men and women. Nothing remained ordinary in Wishaw in the following harrowing days, weeks and months. For many families, nothing would be the same again.
A well-known and respected butcher supplied two bags of beef stew, some pastry tops and raw meat for soup to the church hall the day before the lunch. In the following days, 45 of the 87 luncheon guests suffered severe symptoms of gastric disorder. The bacterium E. coli 0157 claimed the lives of eight of the elderly church-goers, and the outbreak spread throughout the towns and villages in central Scotland to which a small, family-run Wishaw butcher supplied cooked and raw meats.
A batch of the meat became cross-contaminated and, whenever it was served as a main hot meal or in sandwiches, cut down elderly people who were too frail to fight the deadly bacterium. In Bankview nursing home, in Bonnyrigg in central Scotland, five elderly residents were infected with, and died of, E. coli 0157. The strain of the organism that attacked the nursing home was the same as the strain that was allowed to manifest itself in the Wishaw butcher's shop in Lanarkshire.
The outbreak would eventually leave 22 people dead. Two of them—Mary Smith, aged 90, and Anthony Smith, aged 95—were my near neighbours, living in the same street as me. They were a lovely old couple, who did not deserve the excruciating death that befell them and left their family traumatised. Mrs. Smith was already dying in Monklands hospital in Airdrie as a result of the outbreak when Mr. Smith was diagnosed as having pneumonia, but he had eaten the same food as his wife, and he died 10 days before her. To this day, the family have no doubt that he was the unaccounted-for 22nd victim.
E. coli 0157 left 13 people with permanent kidney damage and 151 people hospitalised; 373 cases were confirmed, and more than 500 people were affected in Lanarkshire and central Scotland. The ordinary church lunch, the ordinary nursing home snack, the ordinary 18th birthday party buffet and the ordinary weekly shopping—all of them contained a dark bacterium, ready to strike the fragile, the elderly and the young alike. Once that bacterium took hold, there was little warning that could help many of its victims.
There are other reasons to welcome the establishment of this truly independent Food Standards Agency. As our eating, cooking and food-purchasing habits change, so does the scale of food poisoning throughout the United Kingdom. From remarkable figures obtained from the House of Commons Library, I note that in Scotland, 4,525 cases of food poisoning were notified by GPs in 1982. By 1998, the figure had risen by 100 per cent. to 9,054. In England and Wales, the statistics are even more frightening. In 1982, 14,253 cases were reported, and last


year, the figure had risen to 93,366. That is an increase of 555 per cent. More than 100,000 cases of food poisoning have been reported by our GPs in the last 12 months alone. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that those are truly frightening statistics, which urgently need to be addressed.
At this point, I intended to discuss the proposed £90 levy on food retailers that was to fund the Food Standards Agency, but clause 39 now ensures that our Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies will be the paymasters. We have heard a great deal from the food industry about the imposition of a "food poll tax", but a levy of 30p a day would amount to less than the price of two sausages, half a pint of milk or two forkfuls of stewing steak for a family-run butcher's shop in Wishaw. If such a levy is considered excessive, some of those in the food sector have their priorities wrong. E. coli, campylobacter and salmonella do not recognise the size of the profit-and-loss account of a food retailer or caterer.
I am truly sorry that some people consider 30p too high a price for all retailers and caterers to pay to ensure that the products they sell are safe for human consumption. If 30p a day is the difference between some businesses' operating and closing down, I seriously ask where else they may be tempted to cut costs and hygiene practices. Alas, clause 39 ensures that the taxpayer will be responsible for an agency whose establishment has been necessitated by the bad habits that have accumulated in the food sector.
Professor Hugh Pennington, who was commissioned to report on the E. coli 0157 outbreak, gave evidence to the Food Standards Committee at its hearing on 24 February 1999. Interestingly, he opined that the agency
will achieve the aim of being independent, giving consumer confidence in the food chain".
He said that it would
be needed to control the E. Coli organism in farm animals",
and would
be able to scrutinise food preparation practices in even the smallest shop.
Above all, Professor Pennington said that he believed that a food standards agency could have prevented the outbreaks in my constituency and throughout central Scotland.
If that is not a good enough reason for me to ask every Member to support the new agency, the House should remember the other 22 reasons that I gave earlier. There are the Wishaw old parish church luncheon guests: Harry Shaw, Sarah Cameron, Josephine Foster, Alexander Gardiner, James Henderson, Mary Jackson, Jessie Rogerson and Herbert Swanston. There are the Bankview nursing home residents: Helen Fraser, Alexander Nicol, Mary Paisley, Lilly Scott and Catherine Aitken. And there are the remaining eight victims: Edward Laverty, Marian Muir, Rachel O'Malley, Joan Blackwood, Arthur Smith, Annie Criggie, Christina Wright, and Mary and Anthony Smith.
Those were all ordinary elderly people, just the same as the elderly people all hon. Members represent. They were all much loved, and are still sorely missed. Their families deserve at least to know that what happened to

their relations has not been forgotten, and that what they suffered may not happen to others when a food standards agency is finally introduced under this Labour Government.
E. Coli 0157 first struck in my constituency in November 1996. In March 1997, Professor Philip James, director of the Rowett research institute in Aberdeen, was asked by the Prime Minister to prepare a report setting out the proposed blueprint for a food standards agency. The James report was published on 7 May 1997. A White Paper was launched on 14 January 1998, a draft Bill was presented to the House on 27 January 1999 and an ad hoc Food Standards Select Committee was set up on 8 February 1999, reporting on 31 March.
Now is the time for all hon. Members finally to act to make our food chain the safest in the world. My constituents have waited long enough for a food standards agency—a truly independent agency, which will put the safety of the consumer at the top of its "safer shopping list". At last, we have safety from the plough to the plate.
Let me end by reminding the House that the outbreak happened in an ordinary town, in an ordinary church hall and at an ordinary lunch—but for all who were present, life would never be the same again. The House owes something to those pensioners. In a letter to me, Mrs. Sharon McKellar, the grand-daughter of old Mr. and Mrs. Smith, wrote:
Wouldn't it be a fitting tribute to our loved ones if this agency was set up and given wide ranging powers to ensure that nothing like the E. coli outbreak ever happens again".
I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to remember those words, and I thank them for the courtesy of listening to that plea.

8 pm

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) on his speech, and on the way in which he described so graphically the tragic occurrence in his constituency. However, he was wrong to draw the conclusion that the tragedy could have been avoided if an "independent food standards agency", as he called it, had been established. If he will recall, the sheriff who investigated the matter found that it was caused by a failure of local enforcement and not of wider policy.
The problem—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said—is that Conservative Members do not believe that the Food Standards Agency will be truly independent. Nothing in the Bill itself says that the agency will be independent; indeed, the Bill describes the very close ties that the agency will have with Ministers. I suspect that, should there be another food crisis—such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw—or another food scare, the buck will come straight back to Ministers, with newspapers demanding action by Ministers and not by the Food Standards Agency.
I was interested to hear the Minister of State say that the Bill was a very clear one until the lawyers got hold of it.

Mr. Rooker: I said the White Paper.

Mr. Atkinson: Yes.
Nevertheless, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, I read the Bill. The major point on the agency's independence is dealt with in schedule 4, under "Minor and consequential amendments". The explanatory memorandum—and schedule 4—states quite clearly that the Bill
provides for the Secretary of State to direct that a duty imposed on an enforcement body under the Act should instead be discharged by himself'
meaning the Secretary of State for Health or the Minister of Agriculture. It also provides for
the agency to be one of the bodies which may be named as an enforcement body in regulations made under section 6
of the Act.
There we have a clear statement—absolutely in black and white, tucked away at the very back the Bill—that Ministers are taking to themselves powers to direct the agency. The Food Standards Agency will not be an independent agency or a replica of the American Food and Drug Administration, as it has been touted to be.

Mr. Rooker: I shall do my best to respond to those points, both in my reply and in Committee. However, we have made it quite clear that the agency will be a non-ministerial Department, giving it the same legal status as Customs and Excise. In other words, it will work at an arm's-length distance from ministerial daily control. Moreover, ultimately and crucially, it will be accountable to the House. The agency will, therefore, not be able to write its own agenda—which is partly why its guiding principles have been enshrined in the Bill.

Mr. Atkinson: The Minister was right to say that the agency will be like Customs and Excise—perhaps more so—as that body is not independent. The Food Standards Agency should not be proclaimed to be an independent agency, such as the American Food and Drug Administration—which receives United States Government funding, although it has no direct link to Ministers, as our agency will have.
The difference between the agency and Customs and Excise is that a Minister will have the power to direct that
a duty imposed on an enforcement body"—
which is the agency—
should be discharged by himself'.
That will impose even greater ministerial control over the agency than Ministers currently have over Customs and Excise.
The Bill is also opaque—although we have heard much talk in the debate about transparency—because of the way in which it has been drafted. Only when we do some digging do we begin to discover the huge powers that the Bill will give to Ministers to take over from local authorities.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow that the Bill's real weakness—which I urge Ministers to consider before it is considered in Committee—was created with the decision to put the Meat Hygiene Service under the agency's control. That decision also created the need for the paragraphs in schedule 4, which give Ministers the power to run the Meat Hygiene Service—which will be seen as both judge and jury by those who have to deal with it. The decision is a great mistake, as it will compromise such independence as the agency should have.
In his normal way, the Minister of Agriculture was suitably inscrutable in answering questions from Labour Back Benchers about precisely where the Food Standards Agency will start and stop. I realise that the agency is to do with food safety and with food standards, but I do not understand whether that will include, for example, welfare. The Minister was asked about animal welfare, but my impression—I shall have to read tomorrow's Hansard a bit more carefully—was that he did not answer the question.
I do not believe that the Food Standards Agency will be able to deal with welfare issues, or that it will have any influence on whether a British company buys Danish pork that is produced less satisfactorily than British pork, or on whether much of the chicken entering the United Kingdom from Thailand has been produced in what we would consider to be an inhumane way. I do not believe that the agency will have any remit to interfere with that trade, providing that the chicken meat arriving in the UK is considered safe.
There is obscurity also in relation to genetic modification. Will the agency have any discretion in how it deals with genetically modified foods? If genetically modified soya beans imported from the United States are considered safe—as they have been—by the American Food and Drug Administration, they will almost certainly be considered safe, for food safety purposes, by the Food Standards Agency. If the agency is at all independent, it will have to consider them safe.
Conservative Members' arguments about genetic modification are not necessarily about the safety of altered soya beans or maize products, but about the environmental impact of those crops—about which the Food Standards Agency will have absolutely no say. Therefore, on that issue—which is of singular importance to people—the Food Standards Agency will receive a battering, but will not be able to act.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, there will also be a temptation for the agency to become a busy-body and nannying agency. There is also a threat that it will prevent those who still like to consume green-top milk and unpasteurised cheese from being able to continue doing something that they have done for a very long time.
I congratulate the Minister on taking the decision to abolish the levy. The so-called £90 tax on small shops was enormously controversial in my rural constituency, in which one or two small shops are surviving. In only a few days, in a small country town, one of my small shopkeepers—our local, well-respected fishmonger—collected 1,000 signatures on the matter. I am therefore glad to congratulate the Minister on bowing to the political inevitability of taking that decision. I am also pleased that at least one Minister has not lost his head on farm politics, as so many of his colleagues have done recently.

Mr. Mark Todd: I warmly welcome the Bill as an important step in improving United Kingdom food safety and nutritional standards. However, I should like to focus on only one of its specific aspects—about which we have heard some comment today—which is the concept of risk, as that concept is applied in the Bill.
The first thing to say is that we are largely ignorant about the true state of food safety in the United Kingdom, as the data are incomplete, and we have much evidence of under-reporting. The Bill provides for increased powers to increase reporting by responsible authorities, and that provision is clearly necessary.
The information that is available is extremely hard to interpret. The classic example of that is regional discrepancies in food poisoning across the United Kingdom. Generally, Northern Ireland has much lower levels of food poisoning than other areas. Scotland used to have a much higher level of food poisoning, although the latest statistics showed that that was not true at least for last year. It is also hard to interpret the data and reach a reasonable judgment on what is happening.
We also know painfully little about international comparisons on food safety. On the Agriculture Committee's visit to the United States, it became quite evident that there was much greater confidence in the United States in the various forms of agency involved in enforcing food safety and food standards. When one looked at the limited data available, one found little evidence for such confidence. There had been large-scale outbreaks of food poisoning, which would have caused great concern had they been repeated in this country.
We know little about the relative risks of the processes through the food chain from plough to plate. Without that, it is hard to decide where we should allocate resources. One of the key tasks of the agency will be to decide on the level of inspection and research to provide us with the answers. Thus far, we know very little about the precise point at which risk occurs most clearly.
We know intuitively that the risk of poor diet balance is far greater than the risk of food poisoning. Clearly, this issue will have to be weighed when the agency considers how to allocate its tasks and the weight of its responsibilities. The agency's role in addressing the balance of diet is welcome, but I shall not dwell on that issue this evening. We need far greater knowledge, and the agency has an extremely demanding task ahead of it in gathering that knowledge.
The agency must act proportionately to the risk, to the processes that are being studied and to the various sizes of business in this country. In that context, I welcome the dropping of the blanket charges to be levied by the agency. That is commendable. However, I retain the germ of a concern. I have often thought that when Britain lost an empire, it had to find roles for those trained in producing rules and close governance. We have heard of the lack of relationship between the quantity of regulation and the sought-for outcome in this matter.
The previous 10 years have seen an increase in concern and an increase in Government response, in terms of the amount of work and paper put into the task. One must say also that they have shown no evidence of a reduction in the quantity of food poisoning outbreaks. That gives some doubt to the idea that mere regulation is the solution to our problems.
On proportionality, it would be extremely easy for the agency to crush small food enterprises with intrusive regulations, and to become an obstruction to consumer choice. Other hon. Members have referred to the case of

the specialist cheese manufacturer who was tackled with an emergency control order, which effectively put the business out of action entirely. Many have argued that that was a disproportionate use of a power to respond to a genuine health issue. We must recognise the need for proportionality of response and respect for small food-producing enterprises.
Large producers with complex handling processes and long supply chains must, by their nature, carry greater risk than small producers with largely local supply chains and local customer bases. The closure of small enterprises may increase risks by elongating journeys and adding to the complexity of the food chain process. I am concerned about protecting and encouraging food enterprises. This country runs a deficit in milk-based products, in spite of having excellent raw materials. We must ensure that the regulatory framework allows that position to change.
It is critical that any controls and monitoring processes apply to imports at a level equivalent to those applied in the UK. We must recognise that that will be difficult, because the legal framework lies largely outside our control and is carried out by the European Union—albeit locally, by our agencies. Reaching a level of equivalence will be hard, but we must attempt it.
On education, we are moving towards a society of work-free and thought-free food, in which all the work is done by unknown hands. We are less and less aware of food science and of the reasons for what we are doing in the kitchen, which our parents would have readily understood. Our ignorance carries great risk. The Agriculture Committee has said that it is critical that the agency clearly defines the responsibilities of Government, of the food industry and of consumers themselves for food safety.
To try and pass the parcel away from the home is unrealistic, for obvious reasons, and it is dangerous in encouraging a degree of complacency—a belief that food can be totally safe. We will never achieve a clinical hospital environment for the production of our food—and arguably we never should, even if it were possible. Safety can never be assured. It is almost certainly true that there is as much risk in the domestic fridge and microwave as in some other parts of the food chain. Without pestering and intrusiveness, we should help to reverse the decline in public knowledge.
It is wise to reserve powers to intervene in the work of local authorities. Much valuable work is done by local authorities, but it is inconsistently prioritised, unevenly funded and patchy in effect. We have heard comments about that this evening.
I hope that the Bill will lead the drive to greater quality and consistency. My concerns relate largely to how the agency will act, rather than how the Bill is drafted or the intent of the Government. This is an excellent Bill, which was improved following the consultation. Let us get the agency working on it as fast as possible.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I had the honour to serve on the first pre-legislative scrutiny Committee which considered this Bill. I pay tribute to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). He was given an extremely short time by the House authorities to get the Committee together, and he was given effectively about a month to get the


report out. There were many disparate views on the Committee, but we reached agreement on many points. The Bill was improved by many of the Committee's recommendations, and that was due very much to the skill of our Chairman.
Many of the witnesses from the public interest sector seemed to feel that the British food industry was some kind of conspiracy to poison the British public and—much worse—to make a profit from doing so. I felt that, in many ways, the safety problem was exaggerated.
With 59 million inhabitants eating three meals a day, I calculate that 64,605 million meals are eaten in this country each year. In 1997, there were 32,596 cases of salmonella—a figure which fell by 28 per cent. to 23,420 in 1998. Remarkably, no one really knows why. The probable explanation is that it was a cold summer, so people went back to eating more beef, which pushed consumption up to pre-BSE levels. At the same time—thanks to Delia Smith—there was a massive increase in egg consumption, which confounded those health pundits who are not keen on people eating eggs.
The 100,000 cases of food poisoning annually are more accurately reported by doctors as suspected food poisoning, and they do not have laboratory confirmation. In 1997, there were 307 deaths from food poisoning. That can be compared with the 3,278 deaths on the roads, or with the 1996 figure for accidents in the home—3,499. Sadly, the suicide figure for 1996 was 3,445. We must bear in mind the proportionality of the 307 tragic deaths from food poisoning.
When considering the Bill, we should keep these questions in mind. How do we minimise unnecessary deaths? How should the state's money best be spent to achieve that? That calls into question the concept of regulation by the state.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) spoke eloquently about the ghastly case in his constituency. No one here would begrudge the 30p that he said would pay for the agency, but his belief that the agency will cure all food problems is quaint and touching. It simply cannot do that.
As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said, there will always be a risk. An overarching state authority cannot remove all the risk. The responsibility for food standards and safety should remain firmly with the producers. The danger with state regulation is that it is in the regulators' self-interest to exaggerate a problem, underestimate the ease and cost of correction and overspecify the necessary solutions.
State regulation is frequently out of date and falls behind as technology moves on. Self-regulation can offer a better route so long as the responsibility rests firmly on the producers and they carry on their business in the knowledge that they will be caught and severely punished if they make a mistake.
Transportation in New Zealand is an interesting case. The state used to employ 5,500 people regulating every aspect of all New Zealand transport businesses, including safety and price. The authorities changed that, and, instead of insisting that operators complied with state regulations, they put the responsibility firmly on the operators. The number of people employed is now 57 and the measured safety outcomes are enormously improved.
Self-regulation works so long as there is the certainty of detection and then punishment for a failure. That could work here. We could easily have a simple, one-line Bill

imposing a fine of one year's turnover on any food business that is proven to have caused a major case of food poisoning. In those circumstances, an independent agency, studying, collating and above all disseminating the very latest information on food safety to food businesses could become an immensely benign institution, bringing widespread, positive results; but to be independent it should have absolutely no executive powers and should certainly not interfere directly.
I take issue immediately with clause 1(2). It is far too ambitious. It is unrealistic for a central Government agency to take on responsibility for the safety of all food sold in this country. The primary responsibility must rest with the producers. No Government institution can take responsibility for every process, so the agency's eventual failure is written into the Bill.
Worse, the Bill presumes an artificial difference of interest between the consumer and the producer. In fact, their interests are identical: the producer's only interest is in ensuring that the consumer enjoys his product and comes back to buy more. The agency should regard itself as a first-class provider of quality information to the producer, not the defender of the consumer against the producer.
Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 are potentially benign but would be far more constructive if the emphasis were on treating the producers and not the end customers as the agency's main focus. The agency's composition will be crucial in deciding which direction it will ultimately take. Clause 2 is highly unsatisfactory. It is vital that all sides of the food industry are represented, and the requirement on members to declare their interests must be placed in the Bill fair and square, as the Committee demanded.
Producers, distributors and caterers employ 500,000 people in small food businesses. Hundreds of small meat and dairy businesses are at risk because over-regulation is out of control. The Meat Hygiene Service is not mentioned once in the Bill; it is referred to only on pages 12, 37 and 40 of the explanatory notes. It is a strange organisation that goes back to the Farmers General, one of the agencies that was fundamental in bringing down the ancien regime in France. It is a tax farm. It has been given the right to extend its own activities, thus extending the resources that it requires.
I have had letters from all over the country about the appalling damage that the service is doing to small producers. It is trying to impose uniform practices and protocols from the centre on all meat producers. The correct target is to achieve a uniform outcome, regardless of the size of the enterprise.
That was graphically brought home to the Committee by Mr. Peter Greig of Piper's Farm in the west country. He offers superb products. In the past three years, he has won four national awards. He employs only seven full-time staff but keeps 25 surrounding farmers and an abattoir busy. His abattoir is consistently in the top 10 of the hygiene assessment scores. He takes one and a quarter hours to dress a bullock. The Meat Hygiene Service insists on a vet being present, as if it were a huge plant processing several hundred bullocks an hour. At £45 an hour, he is paying £60 per beast.
Elsewhere, the Meat Hygiene Service is employing Spanish vets with poor English. In one case in Shropshire, the vets mistook a pig's carcase for a bullock's; others in East Anglia worked for weeks in a turkey plant and


thought that the birds were chickens; another was paid a full day's wage by a small business and spent one and a half hours in the slaughter hall and six and a half hours in the office.
Despite all that, the Minister of State said on Radio 4 that
the Government is very concerned about niche food producers.
The owner of a small abattoir in east Wales wrote to me. His charges have gone up from £300 to £17,000 a year; he pays £180 a tonne, as opposed to the £1 a tonne in a big meat plant for a supermarket. He pointed out forcefully that the United States, Australia and New Zealand have rejected the system used by the Meat Hygiene Service and said that one study has shown that
the largest single cause of meat contamination is the inspection process in the slaughterhouse.
If the Meat Hygiene Service is to be run by the Food Standards Agency, the latter will be compromised. Fundamentally, we want an independent agency that rules out the current nonsense and says that it is the outcome that counts for the little abattoirs, which produce superb products, employ people in rural areas and pass the hygiene tests with flying colours. They do not need an incompetent, half-literate Spanish vet to be there the whole day. They want someone to check the outcomes, which are excellent.
The Meat Hygiene Service will report to the Food Standards Agency. It is not good enough to say that in another cupboard of the agency, a unit will do the auditing. The agency cannot be the auditor and the enforcer. That simply cannot work. The Committee said that, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board, as so far our advice has not been taken.
There is a fundamental flaw in the Bill. There will inevitably be a food scare, and it is certain that the Meat Hygiene Service, if it reports to the FSA, will pass the ball straight up the line. The blame will pass to the new—independent, free and open?—Food Standards Agency. That is a real problem. The very first time that we have a meat scare, the new agency's reputation will be tarnished, possibly irrevocably.
The Meat Hygiene Service is a huge quango and it must be monitored by a strong, independent body. If it is to work, it is absolutely vital that the FSA is seen to be independent.
It is bizarre that the Government believe that the FSA can absorb 1,500 people employed by the MHS, although only 400 will be working in the agency, and that the tail will not wag the dog. It is also strange that the Bill does not actually say that that enormous organisation will be taken over by the FSA. We are on the way to setting up a national hygiene service that will report, ultimately, to the EU Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin.
Schedule 3, part II, will give the FSA the power to remove the safety enforcement from a local authority that has failed to meet the necessary standards. The Local Government Association spokesman told us:
If a function is to be removed from a democratically elected local authority then it seems to be something that the minister on advice ought to do directly.

The Committee clearly recommended that
the final decision to invoke the power to remove food safety enforcement from a local authority that has failed to meet the required standards should remain with the Secretary of State having received advice from the Agency.
That advice has been ignored. Why? Surely only an elected Minister responsible to Parliament should overrule another elected body. It is a most unhealthy constitutional development for the Bill to propose that a quango with non-elected members should do that.
Clause 21, schedule 3, clause 2, clause 26 and schedule 4(5) give the agency extraordinarily wide powers. If it is not intended that the agency should take over powers of enforcement from local government, why has it been given them in the first place? Local government service has always had public health at its heart, centred on food, pollution and housing—take out public health, and the central rationale of local government will be destroyed. There will be little incentive for local authorities to collaborate with the FSA if it is seen to be intent on usurping their powers. If that is not the long-term intention, those powers should be removed from the Bill.
If the FSA is to take those excessive powers, there must be an appeal mechanism so that small—and large—food producers can appeal to an independent body. That is necessary because the FSA will not be perfect and it will make mistakes.

Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome this initiative. The area that I represent is at the centre of the largest food producing area in Scotland—the north-east—and we have major fanning and fishing industries, from the producers through to the processors. In addition, we have a number of scientific institutions that have a specific interest in food and food science. I firmly believe that the Bill, which I hope will lead to cleaner and more wholesome food, is in the interest of everyone in those industries.

Mr. Savidge: Does my hon. Friend feel that the extraordinary concentration of food producers, processors and researchers in Aberdeen, working across such a wide range of different types of food—from red and white meat to seafood, dairy produce and whisky—means that there is a strong case for it to be involved in the Scottish end of the FSA operation?

Mr. Doran: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that that is a key element of my speech.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who is no longer in his place, referred to the work of Professor Philip James from the Rowett research institute in Aberdeen, and the contribution that he has made to the development of policy in this area. I take an especial pleasure in that because I introduced my right hon. Friend to Professor James when my right hon. Friend was the Front-Bench spokesman on agriculture and I was previously a Member of Parliament. I am pleased that Professor James's work and the collaboration that they started then has led to this important measure.
In his report, Professor James identified three problems with the present system of regulation of food. He identified the potential for conflicts of interest within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, arising from


its dual responsibilities for protecting public health and sponsoring the agriculture and food industries. He also identified the fragmentation and lack of co-ordination between the various Government bodies involved in food safety, and the uneven enforcement of food law. All of that has been evident in the years I have spent in the House.
Other hon. Members mentioned the various food scares there have been, such as those involving salmonella, BSE and E. coli, which was spoken of so movingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), and we have all heard of the recent problems in Belgium. When even a company of the size and status of Coca-Cola can have problems, we know that the issue is serious. The only way to deal with it is by proper independent regulation. We need a powerful independent agency, which will be provided by this legislation.
There is also a political aspect to the issue. In the years that I have been in the House, I have seen the various problems brought before the House and various Ministers skewered on their own complacency. That is certainly how the previous Government operated and I do not want to see that happen to my Government.
It is interesting that no contribution from the Conservatives today—from shadow Minister to Back Benchers—has shown any sign that that sense of complacency has gone. We have heard a succession of Corporal Frasers preaching doom about the disasters that will befall us if the Bill is passed. I exempt the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), as he attempted to make constructive proposals to deal with the problems that he envisaged. However, when he said that the food safety factor is often exaggerated, it demonstrated that he suffers from the same problem as his colleagues. A serious problem exists, and Conservative Members need to learn the lessons.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he winds up, will deal with the several issues that I wish to raise. The first has to do with charging, on which most people have welcomed the Government's change of heart. I always thought that a uniform charge was wrong in principle, but the costs to the major food producers and supermarkets would have amounted to only a small proportion of their advertising budgets, let alone their turnovers. Although I believe that investing in food safety by means of the charge would be better for those companies than using the money in the budgets that I mentioned, the decision has been made. I respect the way in which the Government made it, and the consultation process that was held.
Nevertheless, I am concerned about the lack of powers for charging in the Bill. Clause 21(3) allows the agency to
make charges for facilities or services provided by it at the request of any person.
I should welcome an explanation of how that will operate in practice. In the research that the agency will either commission or undertake, material will be produced with great commercial value. Will the agency be entitled to charge for it?
In addition, will the agency be entitled to benefit from patents arising from any discoveries made as a result of work that it commissions or undertakes? I understand that the decision about charging has been made, but that does not mean that money cannot be raised in other ways.
I am also interested in how the agency will operate, given the constitutional changes that have been made. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in his opening remarks, and I am pleased that the working parties are already studying how the cross-boundary systems will be put in place. However, emergencies will arise occasionally and require very swift action. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say how they will be handled with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and, when it is in place, the Northern Ireland Assembly?
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) raised the issue of Aberdeen's suitability as the headquarters for the Scottish agency. In the north of Scotland, we were especially disappointed when the Government decided that the national agency would be located in London. We felt that there were many good reasons for locating it in Aberdeen.
Earlier, I mentioned the problem of a conflict of interest in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, from where many of the new agency's personnel will be recruited. Many people outside the Ministry have felt for a long time that what might be called a cultural problem has affected the handling of food and food industry issues. One way to deal with that problem, and the public's perception of it, would be to create a certain amount of distance between the old Ministry and the location of the new agency. Given that one cannot get much further from London than Aberdeen, that geographical distance might have made a difference in terms of perception. In its early days, the agency will find it difficult to establish its independence, and an Aberdeen location might have assisted with that.
I am also conscious of the significant constitutional changes in the country. There is a perception that we will operate as four separate countries. I have fought all my political life for devolution and I firmly believe in devolving power away from this place, but that does not mean that we can no longer consider placing our national institutions outside England, particularly outside London. I can think of no greater statement in support of the Union than the location of the agency outside London, perhaps even in my city of Aberdeen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North mentioned our city's interest in food. We are one of the leading food-producing regions of the UK, particularly for red meat, white meat and marine fisheries. About 75 per cent. of the white fish landed in the United Kingdom is landed in the north-east of Scotland at Peterhead and Aberdeen. We have the bulk of the Scotch Whisky Association. We also have two universities with—

Sir Robert Smith: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the research institutes, will he say whether he agree that it is not just the volume of our participation in the food industry, but the quality of our products and their added value that marks out the north-east of Scotland as a major area of food production?

Mr. Doran: I agree entirely. Our quality produce is recognised and branded throughout the world. I hope that hon. Members appreciate the power of the local press in the debate.
We have two universities with their own schools of agriculture, and seven research institutes. Some 3,000 people in the north-east of Scotland are employed in


food research, mainly based around the city of Aberdeen. That is important. The all-party fisheries group had a meeting today with representatives of the fish-processing industry, which employs 5,000 people. We employ people from catchers and growers through to food processing and the scientists working at the cutting edge of food science, one of whom is Philip James, to whom I have spoken.
I appreciate that the decision on the location of the national agency has been made. I gather that the offices in Holborn have been acquired and the moving job is already out to tender, so I appreciate that the battle is lost. I also appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is on the Front Bench, will not be making the decision, because one of the more welcome aspects of the Bill is the authority that is given to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. However, he will forgive me if I make the case for Aberdeen being the location of the Scottish executive of the Food Standards Agency.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I welcome the idea of a Food Standards Agency. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) rightly stressed the importance of the benefits for consumers. We must also stress the benefits for the food industry, which is important in other areas as well as the north-east of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, it is essential to increase consumer confidence and ensure the independent monitoring of standards. We must remove the suspicion—even if it is unjustified—that MAFF and the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department are too close to the producers, from whom they are meant to be independent.
The food industry in Scotland thrives because of the reputation of its products, which are of the highest quality. The industry is vital to the rural areas—not just agriculture and horticulture, but food processing, marketing and retailing. An independent agency will help to maintain the industry's high standards and will reinforce public confidence in them.
With the notable exception of the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), the constitutional aspect of the Bill has been only briefly touched on in the debate. As the Minister and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central said, the matter has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It is one of the minority of areas that is specifically devolved to the Scottish Parliament by the Scotland Act 1998. Most devolved areas were devolved not deliberately, but by default because they were not on the reserved list in schedule 5. Section C8 of schedule 5 reserves product standards and safety to Westminster, but specifically exempts from that reservation
Food, agricultural and horticultural produce, fish and fish products, seeds, animal feeding stuffs, fertilisers and pesticides.
The whole area dealt with by the Food Standards Agency therefore comes within the remit of the new Scottish Parliament.
Coincidentally, the Scottish Parliament will assume its powers on 1 July. We will be visited by the Queen and the Prime Minister. I hope that I am not alone in being astonished that, 10 days before the Scottish Parliament

enters into its powers, this House is beginning the formal consideration of a United Kingdom measure that legislates for something wholly devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We are not legislating on the periphery of the Scottish Parliament's powers. This is not some spin-off of reserved legislation that incidentally happens to touch on some devolved matters but substantive, deliberate legislation on something that, on 1 July, will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It is as if, having given the power to the Scottish Parliament, and before it has even had the chance to exercise it, the Government have decided that they want to keep some of it. Why is that happening? It will appear in Scotland that Westminster does not wish to let go of the powers and wants to remain in charge.
It will be argued that it is administratively simple to have the same legislation and to have one agency, even if Members representing north-east Scotland would dearly have loved its headquarters to have been there. If the argument for administrative simplicity is valid for this Bill and this agency, it is valid across a range of subjects, many of which are devolved.

Miss Anne Begg: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case. The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission, which is to be set up, are United Kingdom agencies. Surely it is sensible for the Food Standards Agency to be treated accordingly.

Mr. Morgan: I do not think that it straightforwardly and logically follows that this should be a United Kingdom agency. We might as well say that we should have one Parliament to make everything administratively simpler. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] I know that Conservative Members agree with that.

Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morgan: No, I want to make some progress.
If the House did not want food standards to be devolved and wanted the matter to be covered by one agency, it had the chance, when debating the Scotland Bill only a year ago, not to devolve food standards, but the horse has bolted from the stable because of this House's decisions. The essence of devolution is the recognition that some parts of the country may want to do things somewhat differently from other parts of the country, either substantially or in detail.
In Committee on the Scotland Bill, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) said:
there is a possibility, in theory, of the United Kingdom Parliament legislating across those areas"—
he meant the devolved areas—
but it is not one which we anticipate or expect."—[Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 402–03.]
Some 18 months on, I detect some movement in his position. Now promoted—if that is the correct term; certainly he changed his title to First Minister—on 16 June, he told the Scottish Parliament that
There will be exceptional limited circumstances in which it is sensible and proper that the Westminster Parliament legislates in devolved areas of responsibility".
That is totally different from what he had said 18 months before. Despite the facts that the powers are specifically devolved to Scotland and that the Scottish Parliament has


not even started to exercise them, food standards are apparently so exceptional that Westminster must legislate for Scotland. A substantial Bill such as this hardly fits the First Minister's other description of "limited circumstances". I raise another matter to which the Minister referred—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The hon. Gentleman talks as if the decision is entirely one for the Westminster Parliament. The Scottish Executive have agreed the matter with the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Parliament will have the opportunity—I think tomorrow—to make its views known. If the Scottish Parliament decides that this is a sensible way to proceed, that is surely the way that it should happen.

Mr. Morgan: I thank the Minister for that intervention, as I was coming to that specific point: the consultation that has taken place with the Scottish Parliament on this subject. On 9 June, the First Minister said, about food standards:
the United Kingdom Government made it clear when it published a draft bill earlier this year that the Scottish Parliament's consent"—
not the consent of the Scottish Administration, which is a totally different thing—
would be sought for this proposal.
On 16 June, the First Minister said, in relation to Westminster legislating on devolved matters:
that can happen only with the consent of this Parliament"—
that is, the Scottish Parliament—
consent specifically given after due process.
The Scottish Parliament has not been asked thus far. The Administration and the coalition may have been asked, but not the Parliament. When will its views be sought? [Interruption.] The Minister perhaps does not know the timetable for the Scottish Parliament as well as I do, but I assure him that it will not be tomorrow. Will the Scottish Parliament be asked after Second Reading of the Bill, after Third Reading, or Royal Assent? Perhaps the issue will be discussed on Wednesday—there is debate on a devolved issue scheduled for that day.
Let me pose another question: what will happen if the Scottish Parliament says no? What will happen if the Scottish Parliament says, "Yes, but we'd like to change this bit or that bit"? A "process of consultation" implies that the Government are prepared to listen to the results of that consultation. During the passage of the Bill, will Westminster change the clauses relating to Scotland if the Scottish Parliament decides that it wants them altered? I accept that that is unlikely to occur on this occasion because, politically, the Administrations are the same—or nearly the same—in both Houses. The attraction of the new ministerial cars in Edinburgh remains sufficiently strong for the Liberal Democrats that they will stay on board until the matter reaches the statute book.
What of the future? How on earth will such an arrangement work—it is clear from ministerial statements that this is not the end of the process; it will not stop with the Food Standards Agency—when the two Parliaments have Administrations of different political hues? We are creating a dangerous precedent. Devolution will work in one way only: Westminster must take a self-denying ordinance not to legislate in this place for matters that are devolved to Scotland.
We need a convention—equivalent to the Salisbury convention with the House of Lords—which says that, although Westminster undoubtedly has the power under clause 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 to legislate regarding any matter in Scotland, it will not avail itself of that power. It would be a fine inaugural present for the Scottish Parliament if the House were to say that it trusts the new democracy in Scotland to make its own decisions and let it get on with the job.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman implies that we are not treating the Scottish Parliament with respect, but we are—that is why clause 32 is in the Bill. It is wholly within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to vote at any time in the future to take unto itself all of those powers. That would not cause a problem from a primary legislation point of view because it is built into the Bill. That is the perception for the future. We are treating the Scottish Parliament with respect, as we clearly said that we would when we published the White Paper 18 months ago.

Mr. Morgan: Perhaps the Minister underestimates the powers of the Scottish Parliament; on 2 July, it is within the powers of that Parliament to revoke all the clauses of the Bill that apply to Scotland. However, I am trying to make the point that it would be far better if, rather than passing these measures in the first place, this House let the Scottish Parliament get on with it on 2 July. That leaves aside the more worrying precedent that is being created for other matters that are allegedly devolved, but that a future Government—perhaps not a Labour Government—will try to impose on Scotland.

Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the chance to speak in the debate. I do not intend to go down the road of talking about what happens in separate Assemblies and Parliaments. However, a representative from Scotland took part in the special scrutiny of the Bill and perhaps some of the practical issues should have been dealt with at that time.
The Bill is important, partly because it was a flagship policy for the new Labour Government, but also because, organisationally and procedurally, it was the first measure to be the subject of the special scrutiny procedure. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) pointed out, that was an especially valuable procedure. The Bill has been strongly welcomed by my constituents, who have consistently lobbied me on food safety issues.
I shall consider some of the changes that were made to the Bill after the consultation process, especially the changes in the way that the agency should work with local authorities. I very much welcome the rather tougher tone taken in the Bill towards local authorities compared to the tone in the draft Bill, although I realise that other speakers in the debate hold varying views on that matter. However, I was concerned that, in the draft Bill, too much was left to the old enforcement measures. I was not convinced that that would necessarily bring about the changes in standards that we wanted, especially given the wide variation between local authorities in such matters as the division of responsibilities, the variation of practices and budgets, and divisions in scrutiny and accountability.
In my local authority, the Northamptonshire county council trading standards service undertakes some outstanding work. I bring a couple of the department's


cases to the attention of the House. The first case belies the comment made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that no food could be bad for one and that it was a question of diet. One of the actions taken by the trading standards service was against the makers of one of the high energy sports drinks of which so much is claimed. The drink, called "Carbo Power energy drink", was found to contain too many preservatives: 460 mg per litre of sorbic acid, which is 80 per cent. above the permitted level; and 600 mg per litre of benzoic acid, which is 300 per cent. in excess of the permitted level. Those preservatives are not so much something that might possibly cause a problem if one consumed too much of them; rather, they have been linked to bad reactions from asthma sufferers.
One of the reasons why we need the Food Standards Agency is that the way that people eat is changing—the type of food they eat and the risks to which they are exposed are changing. As my hon. Friend the Minister frequently points out, the type of bugs are changing. It is not simply the case that we should tell people to eat more greens, or a bit more of this or that; people are buying processed, packaged and prepared food, and we do not always know how much salt, preservative, fat or other things such foods contain. I shall not go into the subject of turkey burgers, which kept the Committee entertained at almost every meeting.
Another example from the Northamptonshire trading standards service related to cans of cooked chicken that contained too many fragments of bone. In one instance, 32 bone fragments per tin were found. The tins were sold in cut-price supermarkets, and that raises the worrying and strong link between cost and food quality. In protecting food quality, the FSA will be not only considering old and young people who are most likely to suffer from food poisoning, but guarding the quality of food sold to people who can least afford to waste money on poor products.
Although some local authorities, such as my own, do extremely well, others do not. Several hon. Members have talked about outbreaks of E. coli on premises that local authority food standards inspectors have found to be working well. We must ensure uniform standards. That is one reason why I agree with the enforcement powers spelled out in the Bill, and why there must be a stick as well as a carrot.
I also very much welcome the fact that the Bill does not provide for Crown immunity. That is an important new aspect, which means that the Bill will protect not only us in this House, but more importantly, people in hospitals and prisons. We know that people are most likely to suffer food poisoning from institutional catering rather than from one-off meals in a private home. I notice that the one exemption to the provision on Crown immunity is the Queen in her private capacity. At this late hour, that conjures up certain pictures.
Everybody has said that it is good to have dropped the food poll tax, and that will be particularly welcomed in corner and village shops. The levy would have been extraordinarily difficult to implement; I have no doubt that people would have found all kinds of ingenious ways of claiming that they were not running a shop.
The change is good practically, too, although I acknowledge the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), who

spoke so movingly about E. coli. Members of my family have suffered from that disease, so I share his concern about the illness. There are arguments for requiring a very wealthy industry to contribute to the improvement of standards but, at the end of the day, there was a very strong feeling among the public that who pays the piper calls the tune. It is important that independent financing underwrites the independence of the FSA.
I do not share the view that the food industry is a big conspiracy. Although I have concerns about quality and diet, the best of our food industry is absolutely superb. It has a very important role to play in improving food standards in this country and, indeed, abroad, since the food industry, like others, is international.
For example, the Henry Telfer factory in my constituency makes sandwiches for Marks and Spencer. Many hon. Members present are probably very familiar with its products. Its standard of cleanliness is absolutely superb. The attention given to detail in the production of those sandwiches is second to none. Indeed, its floors are cleaner than many people's kitchen tables; it is quite remarkable. The FSA can play an important role in ensuring that such technical expertise pulls up food standards and quality for everybody.
I am sure that the marketing sections of some companies, working with consumers, can produce good food labelling which will tell consumers what they are eating. I very much hope that responsibility for labelling will not be delegated to committees—or, even worse, to lawyers.
I very much welcome the commitment to scrutinise the entire food chain. The importance of that has been underlined by this morning's release of the Food Ethics Council report on the use of drugs in farm animals. It is a reminder that some practices on farms can have as great an impact on people's health as any of the other factors up and down the food chain.
Several Opposition Members have asked what difference the Food Standards Agency will make. I believe that it will make important differences to what happens to food. Unfortunately, it will not mean that no one will ever get E. coli, but it will be an important policing force for food standards. If it works as is envisaged in the Bill and was spelt out in the Special Select Committee, it will drive up food standards. In its role in the European Union and elsewhere, it will help to drive up food standards throughout Europe and contribute to real improvements in the industry. It will improve public health by improving the safety of food and the nutritional content of people's diet.

Sir Robert Smith: I welcome the principle of the Bill. I especially welcome the decision not to go ahead with the levy. Some Machiavellian people have told me that they wondered whether the Government put the levy in the Bill in the first place to take everyone's eye off the ball so that they would focus on that and everything else would slip through nicely when the Government did their U-turn. Anyway, it is a step in the right direction.
I know how the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) must feel. In my constituency, there are communities where the small shop is teetering on the brink of survival, and the fear of losing that shop is a


major threat. Anything that the Government do to make life worse for the small shop is another nail in the coffin of the rural community—I hope that the Minister understands that.
I share some of the concerns of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) about the need for proportionality when it comes to food and the need to remember that the consumer has a role to play in food hygiene. In a sense, food has become so safe over the years that we may have lost the need to be cautious of it and to recognise that, in processing it in our kitchens, we are the final link that decides how safe it will be when consumed.

Miss Begg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that education is crucial in the light of the outbreak of E. coli in MacDuff, where it was the grandmother, desperately trying to do her best for her granddaughter's class, who produced the goat's cheese that created the outbreak; but obviously education was needed for the teacher in the class, to ensure that such things do not happen in future.

Sir Robert Smith: Education is crucial. Some of us have reached the time in our life when, as a family, we take over responsibility for hosting Christmas, as the next generation does. I would have welcomed the advice of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border on how to stuff a turkey. Sometimes I know at the back of my mind that there are things that we should do in the kitchen to increase food safety, but I am not sure that I have the information to give me confidence that we are doing everything correctly. We have not had a food scare at home, but without the necessary information and advice, that risk remains.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) about the wide-ranging powers that have dropped into the Bill. In the two years I have been in Parliament I have noticed that, towards the end of many Bills, after all the detail, there is a clause that says, "Never mind what has gone before. We can do whatever we like by Order in Council or by laying regulations before Parliament." One wonders why the Bill was so detailed, and why the Government did not simply say, "If we want to do this, we will take the powers to do it." Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that the powers in the Bill are not as draconian as they look.
I join other hon. Members representing the north-east in making that pitch. I have made a pitch for the high quality of food from the north-east. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) said, we also have high-quality research in the north-east. The critical mass of research can be made available there. It seems obvious to put the Food Standards Agency in among that research, and there would be the symbolism of removing it from the centre of Government. That argument has been made. Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be as quick as possible. The added benefit is that the north-east is an extremely attractive working environment. The staff of many agencies and organisations have been worried when they were told that they would have to move to the north-east, but once they are there, it is impossible to get them to move on to other parts of the United Kingdom. I therefore put in my plea and bid for the north-east.
The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) is, sadly, not present. He seems to have missed the point of devolution. Once the Scottish Parliament has been established and given powers, the people of Scotland have the option of deciding that although they have the power to do things differently, they want to co-operate in a joint approach to tackling the problem. That does not mean that Scotland is not entitled to do it differently. It means that Scotland can opt to work together with the rest of the United Kingdom to achieve a solution.
There may be a problem with the sequence of events, as the Scottish Parliament will discuss the matter on Wednesday, but in the light of discussions in the Scottish Parliament, it is possible to change the Bill in Committee or on Report. The hon. Gentleman may be panicking unduly. We should recognise the freedom of the Scottish people to decide to co-operate with the other people of the United Kingdom for the benefit of all.
I broadly welcome the Bill, but I do not consider it a panacea. It may entail too many powers. I hope that the concerns about the Meat Hygiene Service will be examined, and that attention will be given to the problem of poacher and gamekeeper being together in one house.

Mr. John McDonnell: I shall be brief, especially by trying not to mention Aberdeen more than once.
I welcome the Bill. I have a personal interest in the matter because way back in the early 1980s, as a GLC councillor, I funded the London Food Commission. At that time it was described as a loony left project, but it promoted many of the objectives of the Bill. I also have a constituency interest. Tragically, my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Nash, lost their young daughter, Joanna, in 1994 as a result of contact with E. coli 0157. She developed haemolytic uraemic syndrome, which it was suspected she contracted as a result of eating a hamburger from a fast-food chain.
With others across the country, Mr. and Mrs. Nash went on to form HUSH, the HUS help group—the UK E. coli support group—which aims to establish communication between the families of sufferers of the illness; to increase understanding and awareness of E. coli, thereby reducing the risk of infection; and to increase knowledge among general practitioners in particular, so as to assist in diagnosis and treatment. The group has also set itself the target of lobbying Ministers, and has been successful in encouraging research and legislation to tackle the problem.
I know that members of the group are to meet the Minister. I have discussed with them issues relating to the independence of the agency. It is important that the agency's membership should be independent. Experience shows that the contribution of advisory committees to that body will be significant. It is therefore critical that the membership of the advisory committees include representatives of the families of sufferers.
The projected number of additional staff is 150. I hope that that will allow fresh expertise to be drawn in, to increase the confidence of the general public. I accept that there will be local authority secondments, but perhaps there should be further secondments from academic institutions and even from some of the campaigning groups.
That point leads me on to the budget. The start-up cost is to be £30 million, with on-going costs of £20 million. I am concerned that that may be insufficient for the promotion of research and the information exercises that we want the agency to undertake. The budget needs reappraisal.
I am anxious about the abolition of the levy. It should not have been imposed on the small shopkeepers and retailers, but it should have been kept for the large companies that could afford it. It assumes fairly substantial profits in recent years. I do not want to pick on Tesco in particular—but why not? Many companies could make a financial contribution, and in that way demonstrate a commitment. The money could be spent on funding the research and the massive educational programme that is needed to raise consciousness, by working with public and voluntary sector groups such as HUSH.
I welcome the Bill's openness. There will undoubtedly be an increase in transparency, but I am concerned about the public interest and its definition in clause 19(3); we need a clearer definition before we allow case law to define it. I accept that there is an ethos of publishing preference, but I am anxious about clause 25, which gives such a stark, overriding power to the Secretary of State to veto the distribution of information. In respect of future legislation, I reiterate what was said about the need for closer linkage with the current freedom of information debate.
There is power under clause 20 for the agency to issue guidance to local authorities and other public bodies on the management of particular outbreaks of food-borne diseases. I suggest that we should also take into the account the view expressed by some of the campaigning bodies that the guidance could perhaps be translated into a more popular form so that there could be monitoring not only by local authorities and various agencies, but by the community itself relating to what actions need to be taken to ensure the safety of the public.
The fine for failure to notify the incidence of a particular outbreak remains £5,000, which is too low in my view. There is no reference in the Bill to a future fines review, but I urged Ministers in Committee that there should be such a review and that the fines should be increased substantially.
Finally, I move on to one of the issues raised by the campaigning groups. The legislation is welcome and we are also pleased that the agency will be integrated in the Department of Health. One responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health must be enhanced awareness among general practitioners and hospital staff who can identify and diagnose problems early and therefore advise on the co-ordinate treatment.
Overall, I welcome the Bill. I believe that it is much needed and that it will go some way to restoring the confidence of the general public—but only if two factors are taken into account: first, the need for more resources, and secondly, the need for inclusiveness, particularly of the groups representing the families of past sufferers.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to participate in the debate because I recognise the importance of food safety and of achieving the highest possible food standards in this country.
I welcome the Government's changing their mind, or backing down, on charging and the fact that there will be no flat-rate levy. I am especially pleased because, after my "Save Our Shops" campaign, I have pages and pages of petitioners' signatures from people who live in villages throughout the length and breadth of the Vale of York, such as Rawcliffe and Skelton. Those people wanted to intervene to save villages and corner shops, so I am delighted that the Government have accepted that village shops and the services they provide go to the heart of rural life. I welcome the fact that the levy has been removed from the Bill permanently, never to return.
The Bill's main focus is on food safety. In particular, clause 1(2) says that the main objective of the Food Standards Agency is
to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food (including risks caused by the way in which it is produced or supplied) and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food.
That is welcome, but I add a note of caution. The explanatory notes, which of course are not binding, go on to say that the composition and labelling of foods will be also introduced. For example, the role of nutrition and what role the FSA may play in that have been discussed this evening. I urge the Government that its role on nutrition should be limited and specific.
What is the position of the FSA in relation to imported foods? Will it have any jurisdiction or none at all over the way that imported food is being produced, processed or packed? That in turn prompts the question: what steps will be taken to ensure that imported foods meet the same high standards as home-produced foods?
Clause 9 deals with animal feedstuffs. Pork and pigmeat from animals fed on illegal meat and bonemeal is being imported to this country, yet consumers are not aware that those animals have been fed on feedstuffs that are banned here. Could those foods be labelled in the future?
I regret the Bill's departure from the concept of partnership, to which the Government have referred in many other pieces of legislation. The agency could have been set up as a partnership between producers, retailers and consumers. Too much emphasis is placed on consumers and too little on factoring producers and retailers into the legislative loop.
I am also afraid that the agency may add an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy, as many of its functions could have been undertaken by existing functionaries, namely, environmental health officers or Health and Safety Executive officers. In that sense, it could be regarded as another regulatory burden on small businesses.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Does my hon. Friend agree that small and medium-sized enterprises across the country, particularly in England—we have heard a lot this evening about Scotland—will suffer immeasurably as a result of the costs and implications of the Bill, however it is presented?

Miss McIntosh: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention, which goes to the core of the Bill. Not only would the original Bill, which proposed a levy, have damaged village and corner shops, but the


slaughterhouses, abattoirs and butchers that make up small and medium-sized businesses will have an additional burden imposed on them by the Bill.
I echo what many of my hon. Friends have said: I would prefer food safety to be administered locally. Environmental health officers should be locally accountable to the Meat and Hygiene Service.

Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss McIntosh: I fear that we have had sufficient interventions from certain quarters of the House and I must make progress. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
The Meat and Hygiene Service is to be absorbed into the Food Standards Agency. With regard to openness and transparency, can the Minister clear up an anomaly? Meat processing plants are supervised by environmental health officers, whereas meat cutting plants are supervised by the Meat Hygiene Service. Does that mean that both will be monitored by the Meat Hygiene Service? If so, that would be a regrettable move.

Mr. Rooker: The answer to the hon. Lady's question is no.

Miss McIntosh: Heads were nodding in various quarters to which I am not allowed to refer, so I am delighted that the Minister has put my mind at rest on that count. Will he now turn his attention to a question that I raised in an intervention: why are we the only country in the European Union that interprets the French term, "vétérinaire" as meaning fully qualified veterinary surgeon? In so doing, we are damaging our industry and I urge the Minister to ask his officials whether environmental health officers could be treated as "vétérinaire" for the purposes of the directive, as they are in countries such as Spain. This country is over-interpreting the regulations.
If the agency is to be independent, will the Minister assure the House that parliamentary scrutiny will take place both on the Floor of the House and by the Select Committees concerned, namely, those on health and agriculture? Will the agency be accountable to the Department of Health or the Department for Trade and Industry? I understand that most standards agencies report to the DTI, so it would be a break from tradition if that were altered.
On appointments to the agency, hon. Members from both sides of the House agree that the chairman, the chief executive and members of the agency should be of proven ability, high standing and without any vested interest. At the very least, some members should have a working knowledge of the food industry to prevent knee-jerk reactions to food safety scares that may arise in the future.
I echo the request of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for the Minister to explain how a Food Standards Agency could have prevented the recent crisis in Belgium. Scientific evidence was presented to the Belgium Government, who refused to act and to share that information with the public.
I make a plea to the Minister that a competent risk assessment should be made on the basis of sound scientific evidence. I pray in aid the banning of beef on the bone. Farmers in the Vale of York are only too aware that we still cannot serve beef on the bone, yet the risk to

the consumer is minuscule. Choice has been taken away from the consumer. I hope that the Bill will provide for the Food Standards Agency to carry out a competent risk assessment on the basis of sound science.
I support the aims and objectives of the Food Standards Agency. It is welcome that the Government wish to instil confidence in the public and in consumers about the food safety of products produced in this country. However, I firmly believe that the FSA would fall short of its objectives if imported food products were not subject to the same high standards as we seek to impose on our own producers. Consumers must know that imported processed and home-produced foods are subject to the same high standards.
Although I shall not vote against Second Reading, I query the idea that the Food Standards Agency is the best vehicle and the best way to achieve these agreed aims, especially as its remit has, under clauses 21 and 32 and schedules 3 and 4, been substantially extended beyond what was originally intended. It will replace local contracts and the local control of environmental health officers, but I believe that local democracy and local control have a real part to play.
Like my colleagues, I hope that the Government will accept some of the amendments that we table in a positive vein to improve the parts of the Food Standards Agency that can be improved. I support Second Reading, subject to amendments being made before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House.

Mr. James Paice: We have had a generally good-natured and constructive debate on a number of themes on which hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with unity of purpose. That bodes well for the Committee stage and for the Bill's further progress. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not present yet, because I want to pay tribute to him. He opened the debate in his usual courteous style, and he sat through much of it, which is more than can be said of most Cabinet Ministers. He did so of his own volition, and that was appreciated. He also attempted to answer all the interventions.
In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on charging, the right hon. Gentleman clearly stated that charging cannot be introduced because that clause has been removed from the Bill. We fully accept that, but the fact remains that if the Meat Hygiene Service is to be within the Food Standards Agency, an existing charging mechanism will be in place. Although the Minister of State clearly has no intention of altering the position, I should be grateful if he would point out any legal constraint that would prevent the agency from recouping some central costs through MHS charges if it felt so inclined. I am happy to accept that that is not his intention, but I should be grateful if he would examine the legal position to ensure that it could be stopped.
Of course we welcome the Government's decision to back down on the charging issue, but we should like to know where the money has come from. Only a few weeks ago, the Minister had to tell us that he was paying for the increased cost of the BSE inquiry by cutting expenditure elsewhere. I hope that, in the spirit of openness that has pervaded the debate, the Minister will tell us where the money is coming from, welcome as it is.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who chaired the Committee that examined the draft Bill, spoke of the briefness of his timetable and the difficulty of doing a comprehensive job in that time; but I pay tribute to him, and to his Committee, for doing a pretty good job in what were clearly difficult circumstances. The hon. Gentleman made particular reference to advertising, and the agency's role in that context. I hope that the Government will respond to what he said.
Much of the debate hinged on the issue of the agency's independence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and others referred. On page 5 of their response to the Committee, the Government say:
It is not the Government's intention that the Agency should be wholly independent of Government.
However, the notes on clauses—which I suspect we have all seen—say that clause 1 establishes the agency as a Crown body, and that it will be a non-ministerial Department. Indeed, the Minister of State intervened to reaffirm that, going so far as to suggest that it would be as independent as Customs and Excise. That does not sit well with the statement that the Government do not intend the agency to be wholly independent.
Clause 21 gives the Government power to overrule the agency's advice, and to invoke draconian powers to act independently and contrary to it. Does that mean that the Government would, or could, continue to ignore advice from their statutory advisers, as they have already ignored that of English Nature on genetically modified crops?
The Government's response also states:
Any decisions made by the Secretary of State to direct the Agency could be subject to the usual and established procedures of Parliamentary and Judicial accountability.
Having experienced two years of the Government's attitude to parliamentary accountability, I should be grateful if the Minister would expand on precisely how he thinks that that could be achieved.
Comments have been made about representation in Europe, and negotiations on issues in Europe that relate to the agency's responsibilities. The Government have said clearly that the agency will represent the United Kingdom Government in Europe. However, it will have to represent not its policy but Government policy, even if the Government have failed to represent the agency's recommended policy.
It is clear that the Government expect the agency to play a major role in strengthening public confidence. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have sought to achieve that, but I fear that the Bill goes only part of the way towards fulfilling the Government's expectation. It also has the potential—I put it no more strongly than that—to join an ever-growing list of Big Brother policies. There is considerable concern—which has been expressed in the debate—that, while the powers being given to the agency may be justifiable in some circumstances, it will have the potential to exploit them in an overbearing manner, to take things too far and to cause immense damage to food businesses and manufacturers, small abattoirs and many others who will be affected by its activities. I hope that the Government will show us some way in which the agency can be constrained so that it uses its powers responsibly.
Nowhere is that more relevant than in relation to nutrition and dietary advice. Over the years, we have all heard of many cases in which advice on what to eat or drink has, a year or two later, been overruled—so that the advice changed from, "Don't eat or drink any of that", to, "Eat and drink lots of it." The Opposition are concerned that the agency will take the practice too far, providing advice that might damage businesses and affect individuals, only for that advice to prove, in later years, to have been wrong.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) also said that the agency should be involved in food quality. Although I understand his objective, I must tell him that quality is usually very much a matter of perception. I am reminded of an article in last week's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, which said that a chef had quit because the owners wanted, as he put it, to "dumb down the menu". The chef thought that the new menu's quality was not adequate—although it included sea bream served with pesto and rib-eye of beef in red wine sauce, which I should argue is perfectly good-quality food.
Hon. Members have also mentioned the agency's accountability and the annual report. The question is how the Government will measure the agency's success. Although Ministers have said clearly that the Food Standards Agency will work out national multidisciplinary indicators with local authorities—which we welcome—neither the Bill nor the Minister's speech gave any indication of how the performance of the agency itself will be measured. Although bald statistics, such as food poisoning incidents, could be a part of such measurement, what else will be used?
Over three years, the Government will not only spend £123 million in establishing the agency, but, subsequently, annually spend another £29 million of taxpayers' money. What system will the Government use to assess whether that money is being well spent? Clause 4, on the need to publish a report, does not provide an adequate measurement—we already see enough annual reports from agencies and organisations that are simply guff and self-congratulatory. The Government must publicise and publicly set targets, and the report must show if those targets are being met.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—who, at one time, had responsibility for these issues—addressed in detail the issue of risk assessment. The Select Committee on Agriculture, in its report, said:
One of the first tasks for the Food Standards Agency will be to draw up and publish the risk assessment criteria under which it will operate. We recommend that it consults widely on these criteria before they are adopted. A clear definition of the respective responsibilities of the Government, the Food Industry and the individual consumer is also required.
There has been only a deathly hush in response to that, but I hope that the Minister will today provide us with a response.
The Consumers Association survey said that 97 per cent. of people wanted the agency to guarantee that food was safe. Many hon. Members have described the true absurdity of that objective—[Interruption.] The Agriculture Minister laughs, but, as he will understand, if that is people's expectation—

Mr. Rooker: You said he was a good guy.

Mr. Paice: I did say that the Agriculture Minister is a good guy, and I shall say it again now that he is in the Chamber: he is a good guy—at least in the way in which he deals with his debates.
Nevertheless, if people really believe that the agency will be able to guarantee that food is 100 per cent. safe, expectations have risen far beyond that which is attainable by anyone, however clever he may be. Do Ministers accept that it is impossible to remove risk? Do they also agree that—as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said—it could even be undesirable to pursue the goal of removing risk, as that might render the population sensitive to all manner of ailments—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) laughs, but he obviously does not know any science. If we remove the body's opportunity to develop its natural immunities, people become much more susceptible to ordinary ailments that they previously would have resisted.
Several hon. Members said that they believe that the advent of the Food Standards Agency will prevent further food poisoning outbreaks. I wish that were true.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): No one has said that.

Mr. Paice: The right hon. Gentleman was here for the first speech, and that was that. I can tell him that that has been suggested by some of his hon. Friends. It is not an achievable objective. I do not believe that we are serving our constituents well by suggesting that if the Food Standards Agency had been in existence, none of the recent food scares or incidents would have happened. The hon. Member for North Cornwall called my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk "the Member for hindsight"—but we have seen far more hindsight from Labour Members tonight.
Many hon. Members have referred to the Meat Hygiene Service. The Government have said that the service should report to the agency, and yet maintain its identity as a discrete executive agency. However, we have no real explanation—despite the Minister's emollient words—about why the Government have rejected the view of the Committee that the two major roles of the MHS, regulation and enforcement, should be separated. I hope that the Government will take heed of what was said by many Members on both sides of the House and look again at their decision on the position of that service.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred to the possibility of appeals, and to the severe impact on small businesses and abattoirs—the hon. Member for South Derbyshire referred to a small cheese producer—if the agency used its powers in too draconian or overbearing a manner. I hope that the Government will look at the relevant mechanisms to provide some avenue of appeal before businesses are closed down by an over-zealous inspector.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said in his opening speech, we would like the agency to have the same powers of control with regard to imported foods—a matter referred to by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

Why should food be allowed into the UK which has been produced to standards below those expected of food producers in this country? Why should foreign food be allowed into Britain, deliberately undercutting British food producers, whose hands are tied by stricter production standards?
Will Ministers agree to extend the powers of the agency? Obviously such powers cannot affect how food is produced abroad, but they can certainly affect what food is imported into this country, and whether it meets the standards demanded of domestic production. The Minister said nothing about the future of his own Ministry. I must ask whether this Bill, once enacted, leaves very much for it, and whether this is his swan-song. The Government have given Welsh farm policy to a vegetarian and Scottish farm policy to a Liberal. They are giving food policy to the FSA, and they are clearly intent on bankrupting thousands of farmers whose incomes have fallen by more than 70 per cent. since they came to power. We must wonder what is left for MAFF to do. What other goals does the Minister have? Did the Minister's mentor and namesake, the Chancellor, say, "Go to MAFF and get rid of it"?
The Bill has the Opposition's support in principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk made clear. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said, it is important not to raise expectations to the unattainable. We support the principle of the Bill, but believe that there is significant room for improvement. I hope that the Government will listen to those concerns and to those of the many organisations which have responded since the final version of the Bill was published. If they do respond, we will do all that we can to give the Bill a fair wind.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I will do my best in the time available to respond to as many points as possible.
On behalf of the Government and the House, I want to pay tribute to the work of the Special Select Committee. We understand the reasons why the Committee had such a tight timetable. We intended, if at all possible, to start to legislate in this Session, so everyone could work out the time constraints that we were under. The Committee did an excellent job, and the proof of that is that the Bill has changed as a direct result of the report and the evidence given to the Committee by outsiders.
We have heard 16 speeches from Back Benchers, with detailed and positive points, although there have been a few negatives. We must not lose sight of the ball itself: why the agency is needed. It was proposed by both Government and Opposition Members before the general election, to overcome the perceived contradiction of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as the sponsoring Department of agriculture and the food industry, being the guardian of food standards and safety. We could not carry the public perception. That is why the agency is being set up.
In a way, MAFF is indeed two Departments. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) got it wrong, because there is no new bureaucracy here, although it is true that the agency will grow a little from the joint food standards and safety group. It is not generally appreciated


how much work goes on in MAFF. I freely admit that, having been a Member of Parliament for more than 20 years, I had no idea when I walked into the Ministry that there were the best part of 300 people in Ergon house and 70 in Skipton house dealing with food matters that are not dealt with by the local authorities.
The work done by MAFF includes that of the additives and novel foods division, which deals with all the issues of sweeteners, flavourings, colourings and chemical migration from packaging; the work of the food hygiene division, which deals with the research and scientific advice on the microbiological safety of food; work on milk and egg hygiene; the surveillance of the food contaminants division, monitoring natural toxicants, microtoxins, environmental contaminants and heavy metals; risk management work; studies of the scientific aspects of food contamination; the work of the food labelling and standards division; the policy studies of the meat hygiene division; the work of the radiological safety and protection of nutrition division; the work of the veterinary public health division; and work on food and welfare.
All that work is being done under central Government. My criticism of the previous Government is that, by and large, I never heard about it. I knew about BSE, E. coli, salmonella and the other crises. No one can criticise the technical and policy work driven by officials inside MAFF—it is second to none—but the public did not know about it because they were overwhelmed by the other work that MAFF had to do on, for example, the common agricultural policy and supporting farmers. The work got hidden away, and the Food Standards Agency is a way of bringing it to the fore.
There has been criticism of the research budget. We are simply transferring the existing budget. I do not get that many complaints. MAFF spends the best part of £130 million on research, out of running costs of less than £700 million. We estimate that about £25 million of that is directly related to food standards and safety. The Department of Health also does parallel work. The agency will have total control of the budget. At present, all the work is contracted out by tender, and even the work that goes in-house has to be fought for by MAFF agencies.
There has been some criticism of the Bill's drafting. I must not criticise the parliamentary draftsmen as I will have to work with them while the Bill is in Committee. The agency, as a quango, is different from all the existing quangos and agencies. It will function as a non-ministerial department and the Bill gives it the right to decide to publish whatever information it controls, and not only advice to Ministers. Obviously, there is a set of procedures to go through, but the agency, not Ministers, will have control. Freedom of information is built into the Bill. That is crucial to the transparency and openness of the agency's operation.
Hon. Members have spoken about the agency's independence from Ministers. It must not be independent from the House; it must report to the House. Its accounting officer will be responsible to the Public Accounts Committee. Any Select Committee can call in Government agencies and the Food Standards Agency will be the prime source of policy making, information and advice for all and sundry and for all Departments and outside bodies, including industry. Select Committees can

make inquiries as and when they want. Obviously, the independence of its members will be important and we will need some class people. It will not be a case of learning on the job. The agency will fully conform with the Nolan principles, and advertisements will be placed in the next few days.
I can tell the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) why we are proceeding now, instead of waiting. Our original plan was to proceed last year, in advance of Scottish devolution. There is nothing underhand about the Government's actions. Until the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no legal authority to advertise for the chair and deputy chair. We have the authority to set up the headquarters building, and that is not nugatory. However, we do not want to rush the process of appointment. Over the summer, we will have time to set the agency up with care.
The location of the headquarters will be central London. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) that Professor Philip James recommended that so that the agency was not marginalised from the rest of Government. We announced that important decision some time ago.
The vast majority of the staff will, I hope—and we are engaged in asking the staff their opinion—transfer from the joint food safety and standards group. There will be no compulsion and we will ask for volunteers. Those staff are the experts, who deal with the subjects I mentioned earlier. We will also need some 100 to 150 extra staff and we intend to bring people in from outside to dilute the culture. I believe that we are handing over to the agency a culture of openness and transparency in some of the policy changes that we have made in the past two years, but we can always do better. By diluting the MAFF and Department of Health culture with outsiders, we will move a little further towards that aim.
The meat hygiene charges cannot exceed the inspection service costs, as I hope hon. Members know. The levy has gone, but the Food Safety Act 1990 provides for a charge for the work of enforcement authorities. Treasury rules, however, mean that only the direct costs of enforcement can be recovered. The Bill contains no means to bring in a tax or levy in the way that was originally proposed.
I was not present for the contribution by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), but I was listening downstairs. He made a big point of saying that the agency will be able to do anything, but he did not finish the sentence, which reads:
The Agency has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of its functions.
That is an important qualification. The agency will not have free range: it will be constrained by the legislation and the guiding principles it contains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who chaired the Committee with distinction, asked about an independent review of the Meat Hygiene Service. It will be subject to the normal quinquennial review, because it is a next steps agency.


I am relaxed about that. The one failure of the way that the House has worked in the past is that we have not systematically revisited legislation to ask whether it has done what we intended. Other countries in the European Union do that as a matter of course. The first time we did it was before I became a Member of Parliament, with a review of the redundancy payments legislation.

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way. That was unique at the time, Since then, we have revisited the Child Support Agency several times, and that was the result of legislation that was not properly scrutinised because everyone thought it was a good idea. This Government have gone out of their way to consult on this idea on no less than four separate occasions. We want to get it right. The idea is well supported, but we want to be sure that all the right questions are asked.
This is not an anti-trade measure. No one has put it in those terms, but I want to make that clear.

Mr. Paice: We did not say that.

Mr. Rooker: No, it has been unspoken, but I want to make it clear that the agency will not discriminate between home-produced and imported foods. It will have no power to do so. Indeed, the Government have no power to do so. Food that is put on sale in this country has to conform to the existing food safety legislation. There are many issues relating to the methods of production of that food abroad, including perhaps welfare conditions, that are debatable. However, to suggest that the agency will allow food to be imported that is less safe but cheaper than our super-safe food, and that people will thereby be poisoned, is nonsense. There is no possibility of that.

Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker: No, there is not enough time.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said that clause 19 allowed Ministers to make secondary legislation to prevent publication of information. Clause 19 does not give any powers to Ministers, but relates to existing statutory bars.
Clause 25 was also mentioned in that connection. We have searched the relevant legislation to ensure that the Food Standards Agency has access to all the information that it is required to have. For example, veterinary and other products are covered by confidentiality under the Medicines Acts, but the agency will have to have access to that information. Therefore, we have gone through the legislation to lift every statutory bar that we could find. We have included in the Bill provisions that mean that, if we find any other statutory bars to information that we think that the Food Standards Agency should have, the Government will be able to lift them. The reality is the exact opposite of what some have imagined. We want to be absolutely open and transparent.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) asked about the advice from the Select Committee on Agriculture and whether Ministers should be able to decide about removing the duty of enforcement from local authorities. That responsibility already resides with Ministers under the Food Safety Act 1990. That provision was part of the draft legislation, and remains in this Bill.
The House will understand that the participation of local authorities raises a difficult problem. One of the agency's three new functions is to set standards and to monitor their enforcement by local authorities. There are more than 300 local authorities, with different policies, budgets and concerns. We do not say that they should all be the same, but there must be a degree of consistency, and therefore monitoring.
One would not willingly take away powers from elected authorities, but it is possible that the agency may ask one authority to take over another's work if there is a failure. However, there are many examples around the country of local authorities co-operating and working collectively, and we want that to continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central asked about charging for research. If the research generates results whose patents are of commercial value, the agency, if it so wishes, will be able to sell those results, or to license them to industry. There is nothing wrong with that.
We are continuing to undertake an enormous amount of background work on risk. One of the research contracts that we recently put out for next year's food safety research was for a study of the best way to communicate to the public risk elements related to food. We understand that we have a lot to learn and that we do not have all the answers. Communicating these matters to the public is one of the agency's fundamental tasks. Although bringing about a reduction in food poisoning cases will not be a test of the agency's success—we do not know why such cases are caused, so setting a target for such a reduction is not on—the ability to communicate risks successfully to the public without closing down an industry by accident is very important.
I shall finish by referring to what I took to be an attack by the hon. Member for South Suffolk on the integrity of Sir Robert May and Professor Liam Donaldson. In a letter to the hon. Gentleman, they have made it clear that neither would countenance any interference in the production of medical and scientific assessments. They added that, when the draft of their paper was considered by the Cabinet Committee, they suggested that it needed to be made less technical. They also suggested that it should include reference to the Royal Society's publication on the work of Dr. Pusztai. Such a reference was included in the final draft, and a set of recommendations for the future were also included. They added that at no time was any pressure exerted on them, and I hope that the hon. Member for South Suffolk will apologise to both of those people.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — FOOD STANDARDS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Standards Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Food Standards Agency established by the Act;
(b) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act;
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.
The order authorises £4,282 million for Northern Ireland Departments in the current financial year which, together with the £3,120 million voted in February, brings the total to £7,402 million for the current financial year.
In many ways, the debate should not be taking place here. The Assembly should be debating the figures, but that has proved impossible. Even if devolution occurs soon, we could not have left the debate until later in the year. We could not afford the risk that our vital services in Northern Ireland, including health, education, agriculture and local government, might run out of money. After devolution, it will be for the Assembly to approve any supplementary estimate. I know that most hon. Members join me in hoping that this will be the last time that the House has to debate the estimates in this way.
We face a crucial two weeks in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are meeting with parties in Northern Ireland in the next few days. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland will join us later this week. Our aim is to end the current impasse and to ensure that devolution can occur by July in Belfast as well as in Cardiff and Edinburgh.
The 10 Departments are decided, as are the six north-south bodies. The Assembly has made extensive preparations for its operation. The other aspects of the Good Friday agreement, including the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and the Police Commission, have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. We are left with two key issues: how to set up the Executive Government and how to make sure that decommissioning happens as the agreement sets out. As all Northern Ireland Members will testify, we face difficult times in July, but I believe that the agreement is robust and that a majority of people in Northern Ireland approve of it.
We are committed to healing the divisions in Northern Ireland society. We recognise the work done by many groups to bring about mutual understanding, respect and reconciliation. We support initiatives to that end and we have provided £9 million for community relations programmes.
I emphasise that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Assembly can only be provisional. They are intended to sustain it through the summer recess. It was always recognised that further provision would be needed. There is no dispute about the fact that some items were omitted from the original projections and others were underestimated. Assuming early devolution, the revised provision can be voted by the Assembly as soon as possible after the recess.
The Government recognise that the £14 million determined in the comprehensive spending review last year is only an interim figure. I am fully persuaded that it will not be enough for the Assembly after devolution. I acknowledge that if devolution occurs next month,


a figure of up to £27.6 million could be needed this year to finance the Assembly's plans. The final figure will depend on the state of devolution, when additional support staff are recruited and when other services become fully operational. The Northern Ireland assigned budget has sufficient flexibility to cover those costs. That will be reflected in a supplementary estimate later in the year.
The Government's position is clear. The creation of the Assembly is a key aspect of the Good Friday agreement. There can be no doubt about the importance of establishing and paying for that major advance for Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position? Everyone has heard him with great interest, but when he talks about flexibility and a further estimate, is he saying that any further sums needed for the Assembly will come from what was voted in March and what will be voted tonight, or will there be a supplementary estimate to draw further money down from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund?

Mr. Murphy: The answer is no. Further money will not come from the Consolidated Fund in that the Government have made it clear that for devolution in Northern Ireland, as much as in Wales and Scotland, costs for the Assemblies must be found from the block grant. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that during any financial year, financial monitoring takes place on a three-monthly and then a six-monthly basis. On those estimates, we will look clearly at the situation and sufficient money will be provided for the operation of the Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I could not estimate a precise figure six or seven months ago, when we were not sure exactly what arrangements would be necessary. Of course, we still do not know precisely when the Assembly will operate from. We will find the money from the existing provision.

Mr. Ross: That implies that any additional sums needed will have to come from provision made under other headings. Has the Minister any idea which they would be? Most Departments, especially those dealing with hospitals and education, find it difficult enough to manage already.

Mr. Murphy: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, but he will not get me to agree with him on this. As we get to the middle of a financial year and consider estimates in a budget of almost £8 billion, we sometimes find enormous underspends while there are overspends in other Departments. The whole budget tends to balance out in the middle of the year. We knew that when the budget was formed, but it would have been wrong for us initially to put in an indeterminate figure. We now believe that we have a firm figure, if and when devolution occurs in Northern Ireland in the next few weeks. We do not know precisely when that will happen, but provision will be made. We cannot allow a situation to develop in which the Assembly cannot be paid for, but it is in a very different situation from Cardiff or Edinburgh, in that we knew precisely when the Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland would start. We do not know precisely from when the full devolved Assembly will operate in Northern Ireland, but today, we are indicating that, in the event of it starting at the

beginning of July, we could have to find the figures that I mentioned earlier. We are confident that they will be found within the provisions of the budget.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the Minister's point, but he said that there was a miscalculation and that certain figures had been overlooked. The total originally worked out at about half the amount that is now required. That is the point we are pressing because that was surely a mistake in the original estimates. It would be wrong to take money out of the block budget for a Government planning mistake. It may not be needed, but I would like the Minister to reconsider his statement that the money must be found from the block grant if a mistake has been made at the start.

Mr. Murphy: The comprehensive spending review extended over not one, but three years. It is more difficult to estimate for something when we do not know when it will start. That is a totally different situation. Since then, we have benefited from the expertise of those in the Assembly, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, who have examined in detail what the Assembly has to provide. I have had several meetings with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and others who have made perfectly clear what it is likely to have to deal with in coming years. There are other aspects, such as the payment of salaries and other on-going matters, for which we must make provision.
The Northern Ireland Assembly is different—I repeat this point—because we do not know the precise start date. We know the situation in Cardiff and in Edinburgh. The people of Northern Ireland voted for the Assembly. I believe that they desperately want it to be established as soon as possible so that there can be local accountability—and we must pay for it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister mentioned the Parliament in Scotland. I hope to be at its formal opening next week—subject to the agreement of the Whips. I am the husband of a Member of the Scottish Parliament, so I should be there. The Minister referred earlier to the Human Rights Commission. Am I correct in thinking that its members are preparing a draft Bill of Rights? If that is so, has the Minister any knowledge of when that draft might be published for consultation purposes?

Mr. Murphy: I hope that my hon. Friend joins his wife at the opening of the Scottish Parliament next week—but that will depend upon the Whips. The Human Rights Commission is working hard on the Bill of Rights to which my hon. Friend refers. I do not know precisely when it will evolve, but I shall bear in mind his remarks and ensure that the widest possible consultation occurs.

Mr. Peter Robinson: As a general principle, does the Minister agree that it is much easier for Ministers to add money to a budget than take it away? Therefore, would it not have been better if the Government had allocated the amount that they deemed might be necessary for the Assembly to that head of expenditure, rather than subtracting it from other heads of expenditure as soon as devolution occurs? Has the Minister not left an unpalatable task for the new


Finance Minister, should devolution take place? His first act will be to take money away from health, education, agriculture or some other head of expenditure.

Mr. Murphy: The matter ought not be looked at in the context of removing money from this or that. Even if we had allocated the money to which the hon. Gentleman refers to the budget in the first place, the same argument could have applied some months ago—as it may apply some weeks hence. I hope that we will face this problem because it will mean that there is a fully devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.
I raise the matter in some detail this evening because the hon. Gentleman, I and other members of the Commission have discussed it. I do not want it to be thought for one second that the Government are reneging on their responsibility to pay for the Assembly. However, the figure is obviously difficult to pin down—whether we have it now or had it six months ago. I think that we are in a better position now to work out precisely what we think could be spent in the event of devolution. It is a matter of judgment whether we should have allocated the money some months ago. The Government accept absolutely the responsibility of paying for the Assembly. That is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for and it is what democracy is about.
I must refer to Belfast port as several hon. Members may refer to it during the debate. The House should be aware that the estimates before it tonight assume a receipt from the sale of Belfast port as part of the Chancellor's economic initiative. I made it clear to the Assembly when I addressed it some months ago—my ministerial colleagues have reinforced this point—that the sale of the port is an essential underpinning of that initiative. We are making every effort to promote a successful sale and we have encouraged extensive consultation about an acceptable proposal from the Belfast harbour commissioners.
However, if, for any reason, it is not possible to complete the sale during this financial year, there will have to be adjustments to spending plans. In that context—and as a contingency—we are, for the moment, holding back some future spending. If necessary, some projects may have to be delayed until the receipt is available. That is a prudent safeguard that may be needed in order to live within our budget. We will clearly have to examine the figures in the weeks and months ahead in the light of what I have explained to the House.
We have included £17 million for European Union and national agriculture support measures, and £153 million for other agricultural services. That includes estimates for farm support, for the development of agricultural industries, for the enhancement of the countryside, for forestry and fisheries, for rivers and for rural development. I know that Northern Ireland Members place a high premium on the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland; it is one of the major employers and is extremely important to the economy.
Economic development is vital for the future of Northern Ireland; we have set aside £153 million for the Industrial Development Board. I believe that the Good Friday agreement provides us with a unique opportunity for attracting new investment.
We have allowed £15 million for the Northern Ireland tourist board; continued peace will undoubtedly enhance tourist potential. We estimate that there will be a 4 per cent. increase in visitors this year—1.53 million people will come to Northern Ireland—and 15,000 jobs depend on that. If we achieved the same levels of tourism as the Republic of Ireland, we could create a further 20,000 jobs in Northern Ireland. We have allocated £265 million for the Training and Employment Agency, and £72 million for welfare to work. Almost 3,000 employees have signed up for the new deal agreement. We have allocated £61 million for more than 11,000 places under the job skills training programme.
The amount provided for education in Northern Ireland is £1.536 million: that is a 6 per cent. increase over last year for schools, libraries, youth and further and higher education services—for all types of school in Northern Ireland. We have included £17 million for arts and museums, and £5 million for the Odyssey millennium landmark project.
Another of the Government's priorities is the health service; we are spending £1,666 million for hospital, community health and personal social services. We have set aside £33 million for grants to voluntary bodies and certain other services. There has been increased provision for winter fuel payments and for payments into the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
Finally, the Department of the Environment covers many areas of spending in Northern Ireland. There will be £147 million for our roads, £20 million for road passenger services and £13 million for the support of our rail services. There will be about £605 million available for housing, and £209 million for water and sewerage systems. We are targeting £30 million on areas in need of social and economic regeneration.
Those are high figures for a population of 1.5 million, and are similar in scale and proportion to those for Wales and for Scotland. That is deserved in Northern Ireland, as it is in Wales and in Scotland. The difference in Wales and Scotland is that, after 1 July, democratically elected men and women in the Assembly in Cardiff and in the Parliament in Edinburgh will be able to run their own affairs. We want that to happen in Northern Ireland. The purpose of the next 10 days is to ensure that we arrive at a solution to the current problem, so that when UK devolution goes live in Wales and in Scotland, it can also do so in Northern Ireland. The £7,000 million plus to which I referred will then properly be the subject of debate and discussion in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Above all, the Executive who will be formed in that Assembly will themselves be held accountable to, and elected by, the people of Northern Ireland. That is the prize that awaits us during the next 10 days.
It is important to understand that the world is looking at Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of good will among all the nations of the world for this process to succeed in Northern Ireland, and we shall do our best to achieve it over the next 10 days.

Mr. William Thompson: The Minister compares Scotland and Wales with Northern Ireland, but perhaps he would acknowledge that, although the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are democratic and have democratic Executives, an undemocratic institution


is proposed in Northern Ireland. If people elect a party, the policies of that party cannot be carried out because of the system. That is completely undemocratic.

Mr. Murphy: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; he will not be surprised at that. We have disagreed on these matters for some time. He holds his views sincerely, as we all do. In Scotland, some 70 per cent. of people voted for the system of government that they will have. In Wales, we voted for a change, too—by a much narrower margin, but we had a majority. The biggest percentage of people who turned out to vote was in Northern Ireland. Of those people, in a referendum that was specifically geared to an agreement, which every household in Northern Ireland received, 72 per cent. voted yes. We may disagree with that and hold our different views, but there is no doubt in my mind that the system of government—with the Assembly and the Executive—was approved by the people in a plebiscite. I believe sincerely that the majority of people in Northern Ireland still want what was approved.
In these coming days, the burden and duty on those of us who will be in Castle buildings will be to follow the wishes of the people by ensuring that the agreement is implemented and that there is an Assembly. Why should people in Northern Ireland not have an Assembly when the people of Wales and Scotland will have such bodies in a fortnight's time? They want one. That is why we should be absolutely certain that this is the very last such debate in the House of Commons, and that the next one will be for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Before I call another Member, it may be helpful at this stage if I remind the House that debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security matters are, of course, the principal excluded subjects.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall start by echoing some of the Minister's remarks. We are debating this order against the intensification of efforts by both the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties to break the deadlock in the peace process. The Opposition hope that those efforts will be successful and that an agreement can be reached by 30 June. We are anxious to see the formation of the new Northern Ireland Executive, and we want all eligible parties to take their seats in the Executive, in accordance with the Good Friday agreement.
As the Minister rightly pointed out, this is not a debate on decommissioning, but the Opposition are clear that only parties that have established a commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means can take their seats in government. As we have said on many occasions, there can be no question of Sinn Fein members taking on Executive responsibilities without a credible and verifiable start to decommissioning.
One of the reasons why we are so keen for the Executive to be established is so that responsibility for the matters that we are discussing can be rightly determined

in the Assembly, in Northern Ireland itself. These are particularly important matters, relating to public expenditure on several key areas in Northern Ireland, such as health, education and transport, yet they are being addressed late at night in a debate on an order which is limited to just three hours. Of course, that has been one of the perennial defects of direct rule, which the establishment of the Assembly is intended to rectify. How much better it would be if these issues could be determined by a local Administration sensitive to local priorities.
Many of us thought that, once the Northern Ireland Act 1998 had become law, we had debated the appropriation order on the Floor of the House for the very last time. I suspect that that concerned appropriation order No. 1—No. 2 is of course before us—although I share the Minister's wish that this is the last appropriation order to be debated by this House.
As the Minister helpfully said, the order covers the main estimates for the Northern Ireland Departments and authorises spending of some £4,282 million for the current year. It does not, of course, cover the money spent by the Northern Ireland Office, including on matters such as security, policing, prisons and compensation. Many hon. Members will look forward to the sums spent on those areas being reduced in the context of peace becoming a firmly established feature in Northern Ireland. Regrettably, that is not yet the case, so those areas must continue to be top priorities for Ministers in the Province.
The order covers areas of expenditure across all Northern Ireland Departments, but I want to focus my brief comments on the Northern Ireland economy. One of the key by-products of peace will be the boost to the economy, which will make Northern Ireland a much easier place to sell to potential inward investors. In that context, I note the money being granted to the Industrial Development Board, which comes to just over £81 million.
The IDB has done an extremely creditable job over the years, attracting many prestigious inward investment projects. To a large extent, they have been attracted by a combination of policies—low taxation, flexible labour markets and less regulation. We fear that the present Government risk throwing away many of the competitive advantages that the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s fought so hard to gain. That would be particularly damaging, especially given the exceptionally high growth rates currently being enjoyed in the Republic of Ireland, not to mention some of the tax incentives there.
Let us look at Labour's record. Instead of making it easier to employ people, the Government have been piling extra red tape, regulations and burdens on to business. The social chapter, the working time directive, the national minimum wage and statutory union recognition will all saddle business with extra costs. [Interruption.] There are groans from those on the Government Benches, but these views are borne out across the board.
After the last Budget, Chris Humphries, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
I do not believe we are yet seeing the evidence of the business friendly face the government promised in its manifesto. Business is more heavily taxed, more heavily regulated than we were two years ago.
The smoke and mirrors Chancellor has not given us the whole picture. The net effect of Tuesday's Budget is that businesses will be £500 million worse off in 1999, £1.5 billion worse off in 2000, and £1.2 billion worse off in 2001".


That is an increased burden of £3.2 billion over the next three years, and it comes on top of the extra £5 billion a year in business taxes that Labour has already imposed.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the national minimum wage. Can we work on the assumption that, at the next general election, the Conservative party will totally oppose the national minimum wage and, if elected, will ensure that it is dropped?

Mr. Moss: We have said all along that we oppose the Government's proposals on the minimum wage, and we continue to do so.
I know that one of the particular concerns of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland was the massive hike in fuel and excise duties in the last Budget, including a 12 per cent. increase in fuel duty. The Government are clobbering the road haulage industry and, in Northern Ireland, giving a green light to the racketeers and smugglers across the border with the Republic. We believe that most of the proceeds of such racketeering and smuggling go into the pockets of the terrorist organisations.
Although we welcome the extra money for the IDB and the amounts being spent on economic development generally, let us be clear in our minds that it will be money wasted unless the Government wake up to the reality of the damage that their policies are doing to business.
I shall pick out a couple of matters for comment. Significant amounts of money are being devoted to the Training and Employment Agency—rightly so, as it is very important. However, perhaps the Minister would give an idea of the cost of each job created by the new deal in Northern Ireland. In the United Kingdom as a whole, the cost is in the order of £11,000 per job, making it the most expensive job creation scheme in history. Also, in the country as a whole, almost half of those who go on to the scheme come off it without any positive result. They move on to other benefits or disappear entirely.
The Government make much of the comprehensive spending review and the extra money being given to health and education. We have made it clear that we welcome that extra money.
Those concerns aside, I offer the Opposition's support for the order and hope, as I said earlier, that the next time it is debated will be in the Parliament buildings at Stormont, with the Minister of Finance and Personnel moving it.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I endorse the Minister's hope that this will be the last time that an appropriation order is debated in the Chamber, and that the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland, so clearly expressed and so passionately sought, will be fulfilled over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, it behoves us all to use our best endeavours to honour the will of the people as expressed in the referendum on the terms of the Good Friday agreement, which the people endorsed and are entitled to have delivered. That does not mean that we have to agree with all of it, but if we subscribe to democracy, we have an obligation to ensure

that the will of the people, so clearly expressed with a 70 per cent. margin, is delivered by the parties in Northern Ireland within a very short time.
The need for a local Administration is apparent each day. In all the Departments of Government, many measures have been shelved and not brought into effect. They are awaiting proper debate by the people of Northern Ireland, through their representatives, in the context of what best suits the Administration there. It is essential that that proceeds as quickly as possible.
I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the task of the new Minister of Finance and Personnel—who we hope will be in office before too long—in the light of the shortfall in provision for the expenses of the new Assembly, which were grossly underestimated by officials in many Departments. As the Minister noted, they have reached £27.6 million, instead of £14 million.
The new Minister will have to deal with the debacle that has resulted from the Chancellor's May 1998 so-called bonanza. The Good Friday agreement was endorsed by the Chancellor's statement that funds would be provided for an £87 million programme of essential and urgent major roadworks. Those included the Banbridge to Newry section of the Dublin-Belfast arterial route, the West Link in Belfast and the Toome bypass. On 21 April, a major roadworks programme was launched for 1999–2000 to 2002–03 by the Minister. That was in addition to the £87 million that was to come out of the Belfast port sale.
Examination of the proposal of the Belfast harbour commissioners, which was accepted, showed that it was wanting in many respects. I am deeply concerned about the indications given in the ministerial introduction to the debate that the funding shortfall, be it temporary or permanent, will mean that not only the roads programme, to which the money from the harbour sale was specifically dedicated, but other aspects of the budget will be affected.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the budget of the Housing Executive for social housing, that for the agricultural and farming community and a number of other budgets will not be restricted because of failure to receive, or delay in receiving, receipts from the proposed privatisation of Belfast harbour. It is most important that we know that as soon as possible.
We all know that duty on fuel is part of the escalator. We in Northern Ireland, along with the rest of western Europe, accept our share of responsibility for achieving a greener and better environment, but the problem is that we are suffering disproportionately from the application of that tax. When we were debating clause 2 of the Finance Bill, I said, as did people from all parties subsequently, that increased fuel and road tax duties were causing great difficulty for haulage and transport companies and petrol retailers in the border areas.
The only land border between the United Kingdom and any other country is that with the Republic of Ireland. The enormous differential in fuel costs and road tax levy costs between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is already on record. In that debate, I suggested that, although the scheme implemented by the Netherlands Government in respect of their problem vis-a-vis the German fiscal system has created a differential, it is not nearly as big as that between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. I have pursued that suggestion ever since.
I understand that the Netherlands Government give a grant to Dutch border companies within 10 km of the German border sufficient to equalise the fuel prices of Germany and the Netherlands. In the area between 11 km and 20 km from the border, a levy grant is given to alleviate the difference, making it half the differential between the products of the two fiscal regimes. I am terribly disappointed that, despite many representations being made by many parties, we do not seem to be any nearer receiving an answer; because of that, there is further unemployment in Northern Ireland, and the transfer of companies to the Republic of Ireland is growing apace. It is vital that we receive an answer on the scheme as soon as possible.
One difficulty is that the matter of who is ultimately responsibility for whether such a measure is a tax concession or a levy concession from the estimates seems to travel back and forth like a shuttlecock between the Chancellor at Westminster and the Northern Ireland Office. If the measure is introduced, as I hope it will be, and the money has to come out of the Northern Ireland block grant, provision must be made for that. The Confederation of British Industry is deeply concerned about the long-term impact that such a huge differential will have on the economy of Northern Ireland. I shall not quote from its lengthy document on that; it is sufficient to refer the Minister to it.
The Department of Health and Social Services deals with long-term care. Some years ago, under the previous Administration, there was a great push to create private nursing homes at the expense of the public or statutory nursing homes. I participated in the struggle to ensure that there was a choice between those two sectors for the less well-off in our community. It appears that economic circumstances are being created in which the private sector is being pushed out of existence. I take as an example the case in the southern part of my constituency, where some 73 bed closures took place in a relatively short time because the funding was not sufficient to meet the cost of care and had not risen in line with inflation. If that process continues, the state will have to pick up the difference and supply the residential beds that have disappeared from the private sector.
The whole question of long-term care seems to have been put on hold. Some of the health boards that administer parts of my constituency have been instructed not to proceed with further implementation of long-term care projects because they cannot meet the justifiable increases in the cost of their staff and doctors. They will have to cut services to provide the funds for those—quite proper—increases in salary, which should have been properly funded to enable the new salary scales to be paid and to allow existing services to be at least sustained, if not improved. The long-term care document says that expenditure on the care of the elderly in our community should be increased. That now seems destined not to happen.
I know that many other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall make just one final point. It concerns the Government's road transport policy. Will there be a new ferry between Strangford and Portaferry, or are we to sink the next time we cross that piece of water? The proposal has been on and off for as long as I can remember. Will the Minister either take up that point, or take it away with him and come back to us another time with some affirmative action to replace the aged ferries known as

the Motor Vessel Strangford and the Motor Vessel Portaferry? I am sorry to end on that parochial note, but I had to get it in somewhere.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Minister said that he hoped that this would be the last time that we debate these estimates, and I very much agree with him. Now that Wales and Scotland are enjoying devolution, we must remember that it is never too late to delegate. I continue to hope—for the sake of fulfilling many of the dreams and ambitions of constitutional reform, but, even more, for the sake of securing peace in Northern Ireland—that Northern Ireland takes its rightful place in what is becoming a federal United Kingdom.
It is worth bearing in mind that £4.2 billion is a lot of money. It is more than £3,000 a head in Northern Ireland, which continues to be the part of the UK most dependent on public funding. In the medium to long term, we want that to change. As Northern Ireland's economy benefits from the peace dividend, I should like to think that the proportion of income generated through private enterprise will increase.
I welcome the money for health and education. The increase in the education budget is about 6 per cent., which is well above inflation. That is very much in line with what the Government promised; more to the point, it is in line with our expectations of proper investment in education, which, for many years, has been starved of that sort of investment across the UK, including Northern Ireland. I therefore award the Minister a big tick, a "well done" and a 2-1 for that.
What concerns me most is the continuing question of the funds that will accrue from the sale of the port of Belfast. Last year, the Chancellor announced under the roads programme a special package for Northern Ireland, which amounted to some £70 million. The money was to come from the privatisation of Belfast harbour through a public-private partnership. As the Minister knows, I have grave reservations about the privatisation process, although I do not intend to pursue those now. Other hon. Members from Northern Ireland may wish to discuss that.
However, I remind the Minister that it is widely acknowledged that such a flotation would raise much more than £70 million, probably in the region of £110 million to £120 million. Lord Dubs has consistently informed Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly—my contacts are in the Northern Ireland Alliance party—that any money in excess of £70 million would be retained within the Northern Ireland budget. We have since learned that that may no longer be the case, and that the £70 million will be spent not only on road schemes, but on projects such as new school buildings and beef marketing. Great pressure has been put on the Committee of the Assembly to support the privatisation plans. If those plans are not agreed, the threat is that the projects will be delayed or even shelved.
Is it still Government policy, as outlined in Lord Dubs's submission to the ad hoc Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the privatisation of Belfast harbour, that any money in excess of the £70 million contained in the Chancellor's proposals


should be retained in the Northern Ireland budget? To underline the point, I remind the Minister of the reply that Lord Dubs gave to Mr. Neeson of the Alliance party on this subject. He said:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an undertaking that the proceeds from the sale of Belfast harbour would stay in the Northern Ireland block and therefore would be spent for Northern Ireland purposes. The Secretary of State and I have reiterated that on a number of occasions. I cannot see that the Assembly would do otherwise, because it would be their money. It is unusual for the Treasury to give such a commitment in relation to a privatisation, but one has clearly been given in this instance. It is there in black and white.
Will the Minister confirm that all the money from the privatisation will be ring-fenced for inward investment in Northern Ireland, and will not be drawn out of Northern Ireland by the Treasury and put into the collective coffers for the United Kingdom? That is an extremely important point. The Minister is obligated, especially on account of the Government's statements in the House and in the other place, to reaffirm that the money will be protected for Northern Ireland interests.
I congratulate the Minister on his confirmation that the current figure in the estimates for the cost of running the Assembly will be modified and increased if the Assembly begins to operate in line with its full intended purpose. I assure the Minister that he has saved the House from a long and tedious list of on-costs and unaccounted costs, which I would have read out had that assurance not been given. In reward for his far-sighted and fair-minded considerations, I shall spare him a whole page of my speech—a rare occurrence.
I want to comment briefly on a matter of continuing concern: rural life and farming in Northern Ireland. I looked at the figures, and I understand the Minister's comments in justification of the investment in agriculture. I am still concerned that agriculture is under great pressure in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will be flexible on the need for further investment to protect a traditional way of life in the Province. It is a political decision to support smallholdings and family farms. Indeed, Northern Ireland has much in common with Wales, including the area that I represent. It is important to acknowledge the Government's warm words of reassurance for Northern Ireland farmers. I hope that those words are backed up by action, especially if the crisis deepens for any reason.
I am duty bound to comment on my continuing hobbyhorse and favourite worthy cause: Armagh observatory and planetarium. Having considered its budget, I can see that the increase from £798,000 to £818,000 is in line with inflation. The Minister is to be congratulated on his continuing concern for something that really is a centre of excellence in the United Kingdom. The Armagh observatory, in particular, is now participating in a proactive way in the international effort to track and catalogue asteroids and other heavenly objects that might collide with the earth.
You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I first raised this matter I was regarded as something of a crank—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I thank hon. Members for their consolation. I am glad to say that, following an Adjournment debate on that very subject a few months ago, both the national and the international specialist press

have acknowledged the substantial step forward that was taken by Ministers in recognising first that asteroids pose a genuine threat to life on earth, and secondly—specifically—that Northern Ireland's Armagh observatory makes a significant contribution to the investigation of what I would describe as a developing area of astronomy. An inflation-linked increase for Armagh observatory could be the most important investment that the Minister has ever approved.

Mr. William Ross: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has read the report of a recent debate on this subject in the other place, and has also read an excellent document on near-earth objects, which sets out the dangers very clearly. There is a copy in the Library.

Mr. Öpik: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have read both. I congratulate him on his interest in the subject, but I fear that I shall be ruled out of order if I stray any further into the subject of space. I commend both the documents that he mentioned to any other hon. Members who are interested.
Finally, I want to raise an issue that others have mentioned: the importance of recognising that we should have fewer debates on Northern Ireland here. This is one debate that I hope very much will pass from us to the Northern Ireland Assembly. As I am about the only member of my party who is not standing for its leadership, I thank Northern Ireland politicians for giving me a chance to keep myself busy in the evenings; but I would rather be idle than see this debate return to the House of Commons next year. I think that we all hope sincerely that, next year, we shall be debating and commenting informally on decisions made on the budget by Northern Ireland politicians, rather than their debating ours.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is not standing for the leadership of his party.
In his opening remarks, the Minister compared and contrasted the present condition of political devolution in Northern Ireland with that obtaining in Wales and Scotland. I visited the Scottish Parliament a few days ago in its temporary accommodation on The Mound in Edinburgh. I need hardly remind the Minister that First Minister Dewar—as he is known in Scotland—has already published details of eight Bills dealing with matters with which a Northern Ireland Assembly would deal in the round. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), will acknowledge, some of those Bills are less popular than others, but that is another story.
Along with the hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and for Montgomeryshire, I sincerely hope that this is the last occasion on which we shall discuss orders of this kind. There are, of course, profound differences between Belfast and Edinburgh and Belfast and Cardiff, but let us hope that Ministers in a Northern Ireland Assembly will, in the near future, engage with their Back-Bench Committees in the furtherance of legislation in their Province.
I want to ask the Minister some specific questions about the order.
Vote 2 deals with fisheries and other matters. Although we hear a great deal about agriculture in Northern Ireland—which is right and proper, as it is a very important industry—we hear rather less about Northern Ireland's fishing industry and fishing communities. Will the Minister confirm that he and his ministerial colleagues are anxious to ensure renewal of the older parts of Northern Ireland's fishing fleet? Especially in smaller fishing communities, it is essential that skipper owners should be given the opportunity and encouragement to replace old vessels.
In Scotland, we have similar problems with our fishing fleet, and Brussels—some might say unfortunately—is the final arbiter over their resolution. Nevertheless, it is essential that we should maintain a lively fishing industry, which must be based on a modern catching sector.
Are moneys being found to encourage training of young fishermen? These days, I probably should have added "young fisherwomen" to the end of that question, but it is primarily young males who take those fishing jobs. The Minister may not be able to answer those questions today, but I should welcome answers to them later.
Vote 7 deals with, among other things, ferry services, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Many ferry services already link Scotland to Northern Ireland, and we welcomed establishment of the Ballycastle-Campbeltown service. However, what discussions have been held between the Minister's officials and ferry companies on developing a service between Northern Ireland and Port Glasgow—which, as the Minister will know, is not in my constituency, but is not far from it. Such a service could be an important development for Northern Ireland, especially for its tourist trade.
I have no wish to harm the interests of people in Stranraer or in Troon, but there is keen interest on the lower Clyde in development of another service between Northern Ireland and the Firth of Clyde that uses the most modern ferry vessels—such as those built in Australia, as the Australians seem to be the experts. Have any discussions on developing more such ferry services been held between the Minister's officials, P and O Stena and other companies?
Vote 12 deals with expenditure on education. Recently, I received a letter from the chief executive of PlayBoard, on a matter which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and other hon. Members are interested in and concerned about. The letter states:
PlayBoard recently wrote to Assembly Members, MPs and other key Members of Parliament within the GB political parties on the lack of infrastructure support for the New Opportunities Fund in Northern Ireland".
After being approached by PlayBoard members, I wrote to the Minister on that very issue, to solicit his observations and advice on PlayBoard's mildly critical view of the Government and their officials.
The letter also states:
The Minister refers to a Development Worker funded in each Area",
but claims that
No decision has been taken on this yet. PlayBoard is acutely aware of the target to create 12,000 out of school childcare places and secure enough applications from Northern Ireland to spend the £9.9 million budget. Such targets require much more than one

Worker in each area, providing advice and support to hundreds of community groups. Neither does it respond to the crucial training needs to ensure appropriate standards of quality and skills.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address that critical view of what has and has not been done.
On the funding of training for industrial skills, I remind the Minister that Harland and Wolff is one of only two shipyards in the whole of the UK that is capable of building vessels and structures in excess of 40,000 tonnes of gross registered tonnage. It is essential that that company be given assistance. I know that it is now specialising in the fabrication industry, but it is essential that training programmes are maintained to enable youngsters to use their skills in that shipyard.
Welding is an important skill in the construction of any kind of maritime vessel or offshore structure. A welder needs to be out of work for only a month or six weeks for him or her to be unable to meet the rigorous standards set by the major international insurance organisations.
There is a need to ensure that the facility survives, as it is one of only two such facilities in the UK—which had a once-famous, vast shipbuilding industry. The other is in Barrow-in-Furness. While the Minister has responsibility for such matters—before it is passed to Opposition Members or their friends in the Assembly—Iurge upon him the need to ensure that that kind of training programme is maintained in the interests of that important shipyard.
I sincerely hope that this is the last time that we debate such orders. Despite the immense problems facing the negotiations in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Assembly can, in the near future, get down to the everyday work that, even this side of the formal opening day of the Scottish Parliament, Members of that Parliament are already engaged in. Committees are being set up there—more powerful than our Select Committees—and I look forward to the day when similarly powerful Committees which can hold the Executive to account are at work on similar Bills in Northern Ireland to those that will go through the Scottish Parliament. I hope that that day is not far off.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Minister dealt at length with the reasons why this House, and not the Northern Ireland Assembly, is considering the order this evening, and I want to comment on some of his remarks.
The Minister referred also to the referendum that was held in Northern Ireland last year which endorsed the Belfast Agreement and gave rise to the new institutions that have been proposed for Northern Ireland. Those of us who voted no in the referendum are not, as some suggest, against the concept of devolution for Northern Ireland. Indeed, many of us have campaigned for years for accountable Government to be restored to Northern Ireland. We want to see an Assembly working in Northern Ireland, and we want greater accountability. That must include the whole issue of appropriation. We, too, look forward to the day when these matters will be discussed in the Assembly.
The Minister touched on the reasons why power has not yet been transferred. I remind the House of the words



of the Prime Minister. In the Irish News and the Belfast News Letter, on the morning of the referendum, he wrote:
Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't just mean decommissioning, but all bombing, killings, beatings, and an end to targeting, recruiting, and all the structures of terrorism.
When the same Prime Minister came to Belfast last week, and spoke again on the transfer of power to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the establishment of an Executive, I did not hear those words repeated. I heard a lot of condemnation of Ulster Unionist Members who have taken a particular political line, but I did not hear condemnation in the same terms of the terrorist organisations that are preventing the transfer of power to the Assembly through their failure to honour their obligations under the agreement.
I hope that, on the issue of the transfer of power, which would include decision making on appropriations, the Government will come down firmly on the side of the democrats. The argument is not between the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Fein-IRA, but between terrorism and democracy. The Prime Minister said that one cannot blur the line between terrorism and democracy, but I see considerable blurring in his present attitude.
The Government cannot sit on the fence; they have to support the democratic parties. For power to be transferred to the Assembly, there has to be at least the beginning of the process of decommissioning illegal terrorist weapons, primarily by the IRA, as only the IRA's political representatives in Sinn Fein stand to gain from seats on the Executive.
To use the Prime Minister's own language, violence is continuing in Northern Ireland on the part of all the paramilitary groupings, but particularly the IRA. There have been three murders by the IRA this year, and last week there was the attempted murder of Martin McGartland. According to the Prime Minister's own criteria, set before the people of Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein-IRA should be ineligible to take up their seats on the Executive, against the backdrop of the continuing violence and their failure to decommission their weapons.
Let me be clear about where the Ulster Unionist party stands on this issue. We will not fudge the issue of decommissioning. As my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said recently, it is no guns and no government for Sinn Fein-IRA, and that will not change.
Right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the privatisation of Belfast port. The Chancellor made provision in his special package for about £87 million for additional road works in Northern Ireland, to be drawn from the proceeds of the port privatisation. My party is not opposed to the privatisation in principle, although I note that Labour was opposed to it in opposition, so we find it a little surprising that it should be so enthusiastic about it now. What is important is the method of privatisation that is used, and I understand that a public-private partnership is the preferred option. However, safeguards must be built in to ensure that the public interest is protected. We do not want a repeat of what happened with Belfast international airport,

when individuals lined their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. That must not be allowed to happen in respect of Belfast port.
There is more flexibility in expenditure than the Government pretend. I hope that important infrastructural improvements proposed recently by Lord Dubs in the five-year roads programme for Northern Ireland, which included a number of improvements to our major roads network, will not be sacrificed in order to proceed with the roads measures proposed in the Chancellor's package simply because there is a delay in the privatisation of Belfast port.
The Minister mentioned the considerable underspend on certain aspects of the Northern Ireland Departments and I hope that the flexibility provided by that underspend will ensure that the projects in the major roads works programme for the next five years will proceed as planned. I welcome that programme, especially the improvements proposed to the A1 dual carriageway—the Belfast road which runs through Newry, across the border and towards Dublin—and the improvements to the Hillsborough road junction in Dromore and the Rathfriland road junction in Banbridge, which have seen several fatal accidents in the past few years. Those improvements are essential and I hope that they will proceed in the next financial year, as envisaged in Lord Dubs's announcement.
We welcome the additional moneys that have been made available by the Government to promote and expand nursery education in Northern Ireland. I welcome the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has been very active in promoting nursery education in Northern Ireland. We welcome the expansion of nursery education, because there has been a gap in our education system. We are very proud of our education system, and we feel that the provision of extra nursery places can serve only to enhance educational attainment.
The Government are keen to focus much of the expansion in areas of high social need, and my party is not opposed to that in principle. However, we have been concerned by the implementation of the new admissions criteria, which link prioritisation of places specifically to children whose parents are in receipt of certain social security benefits. I do not say that there is no place for doing that, but the feedback I have received in my constituency suggests that the system has problems. I urge the Minister to review again the implementation of those special criteria. I support the targeting of nursery places in areas of high social need, but I am not convinced that we have got the balance right. I hope that once the present intake has been dealt with, the Minister will learn whatever lessons arise and review the criteria as required.
The Minister referred to economic development and we welcome the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, especially in attracting new investment. We were pleased last week by the Government's selection of the Bombardier Aerospace Raytheon team's project for the airborne standoff radar system—ASTOR—for the United Kingdom. That will benefit Shorts in Belfast significantly. The firm's main plant is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland have lobbied the Government in support of the project, and we welcome an announcement that will bring employment security to Shorts, our largest engineering employer.
That is the type of success story that we want in Northern Ireland. We welcome inward investment and its promotion, but we also want our indigenous companies to grow and to export their goods throughout the world. We must get that balance right, and the expenditure on economic development provided under this order is very important. We want peace and progress in Northern Ireland, but we must provide employment, especially for our young people. Employment gives them a stake in the community, and that is vital for progress.
The order contains provision for redundancy payments to be made following the demise of the action for community employment schemes. I was among those hon. Members with Northern Ireland constituencies who supported the ACE schemes, which brought important employment into areas of high social need. Some of the schemes were very successful.
The ACE project was very different from the new deal system, which I also welcome and which I have promoted in my constituency. However, the demise of the ACE schemes has caused problems. In the Seymour hill area in my constituency, the end of the ACE schemes has been much lamented by the local community. They assisted local people tremendously, and I am worried that the new deal arrangement does not provide the same community service. I urge the Government to examine the matter to see whether the new deal arrangement, which obviously provides new opportunities for people to gain employment, can also be matched to community needs.
The appropriation order also includes provision for the fire service. The present dispute is not exclusive to Northern Ireland, but stems from union unease about the withdrawal of national negotiating rights throughout the United Kingdom. Many fire brigade officers in Northern Ireland are concerned about the withdrawal of those rights, and I hope that the Government will use their influence to support their retention for fire services. It is very important to the men and women in the Northern Ireland fire service that we maintain a standard that applies throughout the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke of the plight of Northern Ireland's petrol retailers, and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) referred to the road haulage industry and to the impact of the increase in fuel excise duties on those industries. That is a major problem.
Recently, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) and I led a delegation from the Road Haulage Association to meet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She undertook to bring their case to the attention of the Treasury, but we still await a response. I hope that the Northern Ireland Office will take the matter seriously, as the road haulage industry is suffering as a result of the difference in fuel prices and vehicle excise duties between Northern Ireland and the Republic. We are part of an island, so the road haulage industry is essential to our ability to export, and the matter needs to be given priority.
I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for South Down, who cited the example of the special arrangements in the Netherlands to deal with price differentials across the frontier with Germany. I hope that the Government will examine that seriously. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I look forward to the report that it hopes to publish on fuel in Northern Ireland. I hope

that it contributes to the debate. It is important that the Government should move quickly to deal with the problem, because it is having a serious impact on petrol retailers, particularly in border regions, and on the road haulage industry.
We look forward to the day when we have devolution in Northern Ireland, but it must be achieved on the basis of the principles of democracy, just as it has been in Scotland and Wales. It is easy for hon. Members to compare Northern Ireland with Scotland and Wales and say how beneficial it would be for all three of those regions of the United Kingdom to achieve devolution at the same time. That would be nice, but it has to be done on the basis of democracy. Just as it would be wrong for people who are linked to terrorist organisations that remain fully armed and engaged in violence to be in the Governments of Wales or Scotland, so it is wrong in Northern Ireland. We should be happy to see a devolved Administration with democrats creating accountable government in Northern Ireland, but those who are involved in that Government must be committed to exclusively peaceful means. That can be the only way forward.

Mr. Peter Robinson: We have had an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) was chasing heavenly bodies around the firmament. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) wanted to improve the road to Dublin. I am glad that I have a new friend and colleague, sitting on the Government Benches, who supports the introduction of more training schemes, particularly for shipyard workers. I have long campaigned for that cause and have been in touch with Ministers from this Government and previous Governments many times. A lot of work could be done, particularly on welding, because much of the work with oil rigs at Harland and Wolff requires a higher spec of welding. A training scheme in Northern Ireland would allow many local people to use welding skills in Harland and Wolff rather than bringing in workers from outside. The use of subcontractors has been a source of discontent in the shipyard for a long time.
I declare my registered interest as a shareholder of Harland and Wolff, although I assure the House that it is a modest shareholding. I should like to make some comments about the Belfast port. As a major land user in the port, Harland and Wolff has an interest. However, I shall speak against my recorded interest, because my position would not be to the benefit of any shareholding in Harland and Wolff. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and I jointly proposed a motion in the new Northern Ireland Assembly to set up an ad hoc Committee to look at the future of the Belfast port. We had an undertaking on record from the Government that they would leave it to the Assembly to decide the future of the Belfast port. I always thought that it was slightly mischievous of the Government to say that they would leave the future of the port to the Assembly and then put into their estimates for the year £70 million contingent on the sale of it. However, perhaps that allowed the Assembly to decide which way it would cut the port's throat.
The Assembly Committee that is dealing with the matter has been working diligently and has spoken to all the interests. I do not believe that I am telling tales out of


school in saying that there is a clear impression among those who know of its work that it is not as Thatcherite as the Government about the future of Belfast port. Indeed, it would probably take the view that Labour took in opposition about the privatisation of Belfast port. I remember standing shoulder to shoulder with the then Opposition on this issue, in line with the trade unions, which recognised that certain functions made Belfast port a very bad candidate for privatisation.
A few days ago, the Committee met Lord Dubs, who expanded on what the Minister said tonight and said that in the absence of the £70 million from the sale of the port, they were looking where to cut back in other areas. I am sure it is only a coincidence that the cuts suggested just happened to affect each member of the Committee. No doubt they will not take anything that he said into consideration in dealing with the principles involved.
As was said earlier, the sale of Belfast port would probably raise considerably more than the £70 million mentioned in the estimates for this year. I rather suspect that the Government intend to pocket anything beyond the £70 million and put it back into the Exchequer.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman suspect that the person who miscalculated the amount required for the Assembly might have been the mathematician who divided the development land from the harbour land and took some land that was not really development land?

Mr. Robinson: Perhaps it was the same person who worked out the amount required for the Assembly in the rest of the financial year. We will come to that in a moment.
I believe that it is possible to gain something in the region of £70 million by privatising the port functions of Belfast port without taking away any of the land involved. The Committee will no doubt consider that. It would be far better, not least because if we can get £70 million and hold on to the land with the Exchequer getting nothing back, it is a much better deal than handing it back to the Government. We could put that gain in our treasure chest.
I am concerned that the Minister is getting bullish on Belfast port. One might almost say that there is intimidation because pressure is being applied to Assembly Members in respect of the consequences of their not taking such action. I hope that he will be able to assure us in his reply that the clear public commitment given to the Assembly that this task would be left to it is still the Government's policy and that they will not seek to sell the port off behind its back without reference to the Committee's views as expressed in its report.
Before I turn to the Assembly's budget, I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who is responsible for education in Northern Ireland—is on the Front Bench and clearly intends to reply to the debate. I take this opportunity to remind him of the great needs of Cregagh primary school. The Minister was good enough to see for himself the state of its buildings. Local people were impressed by his knowledge of, and interest in, the matter—he expressed his understanding and recognised the needs at that school. Feasibility and other studies have been conducted, but the matter appears to be dragging on. While we do not doubt what the end result

will be, we fear that the issue will drift on for another year. The school has been blighted, and we must have a clear statement from the Minister at the earliest possible moment that the school will be rebuilt, and will therefore survive. I hope that he will make that statement before the Assembly assumes responsibility, as he has taken an interest in the matter thus far.
I want to make some substantive comments about an issue that has dominated not only many speeches this evening, but the debate in the other place a few days ago. Any argument for reform of the House of Lords was reinforced by the contributions to that debate, which were full of much ill-informed comment. Probably the best-informed speaker was Lord Molyneaux, who had clearly been briefed and who put the figures on the record. The result of that debate was, in many ways, most unfortunate. The debate was massively reported in the Belfast Telegraph, the main newspaper in Northern Ireland, and created much concern in the community and among the general public. It is important to set the record straight.
My view of the present process is different from that of most hon. Members. I opposed it before, during and after the referendum. Everyone knows where I am coming from on that issue. Therefore, they might take it better if I make it clear that I believe that the Assembly has been very badly treated on this issue. When asked to perform a task, the Assembly Commission must do so in the context of the existing structure. It did not invent the structure: it was not responsible for determining that there would be 108 Members, for instance.
I did not hear some of those who have complained about the cost agreeing with us when we said that the Assembly had far too many Members and was far too costly. When it was decided that there should be 10 Departments instead of the existing six, I did not hear any of them complain. They opted for the more costly option. Therefore, the Assembly Commission has costed a year of the fully functioning Assembly on the basis of the architectural drawings prepared and passed by the House and the other place. It therefore ill became Lord Fitt to speak in the manner that he did a few days ago. He said that the Assembly Commission's figure of £36 million had been produced with gay abandon; it had been pulled out of the air. The reality is that the most reckless statements were those that he made. He made remarks with no acknowledgement of the facts or of the details, but, having served in this House with the noble Lord when he was the Member of Parliament for Belfast West, that comes as no surprise.
The facts are that the Department of Finance and Personnel produced a figure of about £14 million; and the Assembly's shadow Commission produced an estimate of £36.9 million, but they were pricing for completely different items. The Department of Finance and Personnel was pricing for a version of the old forum, whereas the Assembly's Commission was pricing a fully functional, full-steam-ahead, legislative and administrative Assembly. There is a world of difference between the two. That is clear and it was immediately clear to the Assembly Commission.
Far from pulling figures out of the air, recklessly or with gay abandon, the members of the Commission took the task so seriously that they met officials of this House, who were most helpful in relation to the staffing that would be required in the Assembly. We spoke to the Stationery Office about the likely costs for printing. We


spoke to the Scottish consultative body about its estimate of costs. The costs prepared for the Northern Ireland Assembly are less per capita than for Scotland, for this House and, indeed, for Dail Eireann.
I should explain that I mean "per capita" in terms of the number of Members of the Assembly—not of the population. An Assembly to look after 2 million people will cost the same as one that looks after 10 million, if it has the same number of Members and functions in the same way. The Northern Ireland Assembly was set up with 108 Members by the Labour Government, although half that number would suffice. Indeed, the Members sit in a Chamber that originally held 52 Members. The old Northern Ireland Parliament functioned perfectly well with 52 Members. The pudding is being over-egged in order to bring certain interests into the Assembly—namely paramilitary interests.
The Assembly is cost-effective when compared to this House, to Scotland and to Dail Eireann—although I should not automatically choose to make the latter comparison. The amount of £14.3 million proposed by the Government does not take several factors into account. First, some costs have been underestimated, one of which is the stationery bill. The cost allocated for publications and printing was a few hundred thousand pounds. The Government obviously did not realise that a fully functioning Assembly will have to print Bills and a report of its proceedings. There will be Committees, which will have reports. There will be notice papers, business papers and so on. The eventual bill will be about £3 million, rather than £200,000 or £300,000. Several costs were underestimated.
Some matters were completely omitted from the costs. In several areas, set-up costs—where the transitional programme or training kicks in—which would of course be non-recurring, must be taken into account. There are a number of areas in which there are transferred costs, too. The Department of the Environment, for instance, is currently responsible for funding the repairs and maintenance of the Parliament buildings. After devolution, that responsibility will be transferred to the Assembly Commission.
The present figure that the shadow Assembly Commission is running to is in the region of £26 million. The only difference between the £26 million that it is now considering and the previous £36.9 million is the length of time of full devolution during the financial year. The base figure is still the same, but the amount that will be required, should devolution occur on 1 July, is in the region of £26 million. I am glad that the Minister has to some extent recognised that tonight.
I think that the Government have been involved in a little sharp practice on this issue. As one who is involved in preparing estimates for several different bodies, I know that one looks to the year ahead and decides what provision is required. On occasions, one must recognise that the money might not be spent. A head of expenditure is included if one thinks that it is probable that it will be spent. If it is not spent, the money can either be released for other purposes or put into the reserves. One has such an opportunity later in the year.
Either the Government do not believe that devolution will occur—they have no faith in their own policy of devolving powers to Northern Ireland—and therefore are allocating only £14 million ticking-over money,

or Ministers are saying to themselves, "Why should we get our hands dirty in taking money away from education, the environment, some of the very important job-creation schemes, agriculture or housing projects? We'll leave that to the people who come behind us. We will put the low figure in for the Assembly costs, knowing full well that it is not sufficient, and let those fellows after us come in and take money away from various heads of expenditure." That is the job that has been left to a Northern Ireland Minister of Finance should devolution occur.
During debate in the House of Lords, reference was made—I think by more than one of the noble Lords—to the Assembly's functions, particularly the cost of what they called "democracy in Northern Ireland". As a devolutionist, I happen to think that a devolved Assembly is good value. The fact that I do not think that there is much democracy in the Assembly takes some of the glitter away from it.
The type of assembly to be set up in Northern Ireland is more costly than the kind now set up in Scotland—

Dr. Godman: That is a Parliament.

Mr. Robinson: Well, I am talking about a parliamentary Assembly. The Scottish structure is not based on the same committee structure. The Committees in Northern Ireland undertake a considerable function; they have even more powers than a Select Committee in this House. The staffing of those Committees was not even taken into account in the Government's £14 million, so it is very clear that the underestimate was the Government's responsibility, and that the figure proposed by the Northern Ireland Assembly was not an overestimate. It is important that those facts are on the record.
Finally, in relation to the possibilities of devolving power, some comments have been made during the evening that that is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for in the referendum. I do not believe that it is. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland were seduced into believing that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom meant what he said when he made promises in and outside the House that there would be no prisoner releases until violence was given up for good.
The IRA have killed four people since then. They have been breaking legs and shooting legs. They have been racketeering. They have been involved in all kinds of violence. The fact that they do it under an alias does not make it any less a breach of the IRA's ceasefire. The Prime Minister did not keep his word on that issue.
The Prime Minister did not keep his word on the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Reports of the work of the Patten commission make it very clear that it is talking about a new—yes, completely new—police service. The RUC is on the altar, to be destroyed as part of this process, and the Unionist community will not easily forgive those who have placed the RUC there.
The Prime Minister is about to break the promise that he made about the membership of an Executive by Sinn Fein-IRA. He made it abundantly clear that there was no place in government for those who were still wedded to violence and had not decommissioned their weapons. He is back-tracking daily on that pledge.
The people of Northern Ireland did not get what they voted for. They were given a second opportunity to give a verdict on that issue and, in the European election,


no less than 60 per cent. of the Unionist electorate showed that they had no confidence in the process. The Government would be making a grave error if they were to disregard that voice.
It is abundantly clear that the Unionist community does not support the process. The Unionist community has given, in democratic terms, its verdict on the Belfast agreement, and I suggest to the Government that they think twice before they push that agenda forward. It must be reviewed. It must start to move towards a Unionist position instead of being dictated solely by a nationalist agenda.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call another hon. Member, perhaps I should remind hon. Members of the statement made by Madam Speaker at the start of the debate as to what is permissible within discussion of the draft appropriation order.

Mr. William Ross: I am always mindful of comments made by Madam Speaker, as she tends not to see people who disobey them. Therefore, I shall keep strictly in order.
I am grateful to the Minister for the letter that he sent all Northern Ireland Members on 3 June, stating the reasons why the appropriation order is before the House tonight. We all expected it to come in the normal course of events, so some of us are not surprised to find ourselves sitting in the Chamber at this hour of the evening. The mere fact of our presence shows that the Government's optimism about the establishment of the Assembly has not been realised. For that reason, the fact that the Minister is answering on some of the items that Members have indicated that we regard as sharp practice places him on the altar of having to answer for the decisions that have been taken in drawing up the estimates.
Given that the Government apparently expected someone else to reply to the debate this evening, I am looking at the figures with an even more jaundiced eye than usual to see whether the sums granted match the expenditure that is detailed. I was not greatly encouraged by what was said earlier. It seems that we are to have a block grant. Although we will be able to move the sums around a little within the block grant, in future years, there will be no question of coming back in March with a further appropriation order stating, as was the case earlier this year, that Her Majesty makes a grant of further sums. In that case, on 10 March, it was
any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole one thousand six hundred and thirty-three million pounds"—
that is £1.6 billion, in plain language.
If, in future years, sufficient money is not granted in the block grant, too bad; we are stuck with it. If I am wrong, I shall be happy for the Minister to tell me so in his winding-up speech. It seems to me that if there is a shortfall, it will be a matter of, "Hard cheese, boys. You are stuck with it. The block grant is fixed at the start of the financial year."
We heard an interesting and telling speech from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on the cost of the Assembly, and others have raised the matter too.

The sum last year was considerable—£10,642,000. In March this year, we looked for £7,650,000 and we are now looking for another £6,628,000—a total sum of more than £14 million, which falls short by £22 million of the sum arrived at by the Commission of the Assembly.
I listened to the Minister's comments this evening. He said that there was so much flexibility—so much fat on the sums granted to Northern Ireland—that there would be no trouble finding the £22 million out of some little corner. I am sorry, but I take that with a great big fistful of salt, not a pinch. That £22 million is already earmarked for expenditure under other headings. It has to be brought from somewhere else to go to the Assembly. It is clear that the Government intended the new Ministers to make cuts totalling £22 million in other earmarked expenditures.
It will be interesting to see where that sum is to come from. The estimates and the orders are laid before the House. We can go through them and compare them with last year's. The ways of Government never fail to amaze me, and I should like to know how they propose to find that £22 million. There are often overspends, but rarely underspends. When people in the public service get their hands on a few million, they will find something on which to spend it, even for the long term, such as on vehicles, rather than give it back to the Treasury and go looking for more next year. We all know that that happens.
Having drawn attention to the potential black hole in the finances, and having listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and others on the sum that we are supposed to get for the roads programme from the sale of Belfast harbour, it is apparent that there is a considerable dent in the money available for capital expenditure on other requirements in Northern Ireland.
That leads me to another item about which I am somewhat concerned. Although it may appear that I shall trespass on the bounds of order, I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not do so. I shall simply ask questions about where certain sums are to be found, because they are being expended in Northern Ireland.
I have tabled a number of questions about the inquiry into events in Londonderry on 30 January 1972. The Secretary of State provided me with some information on the sums expended in the past financial year—slightly under £7 million. In my latest questions, I have asked where provision is made in the estimates for those sums, which are certain to increase considerably this year; indeed, I understand that considerable sums have been spent since the beginning of April. The answers are surprising.
Legal aid is normally set by the taxing master and varies for a solicitor from £64.50 an hour to double that sum in some cases, although that is rarely paid. The taxing master is a judicial appointment; he is a judge who fulfils a certain, specific function. The inquiry has what is described as an independent cost assessor presently negotiating with the solicitors for the families, and there is no agreement as yet. The Secretary of State has told me that hearing and witnesses costs to the end of March were £4.25 million. I wonder how much of that money is for solicitors and barristers, and what their hourly rate is.
It is not clear to me why it is necessary to have an assessor. I ask the Minister specifically whether the money for the inquiry is coming from the legal aid fund


or from the Northern Ireland block grant. If so, it will have an impact that cannot be measured because we do not know what that sum will be. Is the money coming from some other fund which has been set up specifically for that purpose? Can we please have an answer to that simple question this evening? How much will it all cost and where will we find the sub-heading under which that provision has been made? The Secretary of State did not tell me that in her answer to my last question. I believe that unless the money has come from sources outwith the Northern Ireland block grant, there will be implications because the sum is considerable. The people of Northern Ireland need to be told exactly what the position is.
On a number of occasions, I have raised in the House the issue of care of the elderly who require nursing care; the Minister and I have debated it before. He will recall that, in the debate of 28 January in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee on the hospital services, I highlighted the problem of elderly people in hospital who should have been in nursing home beds and pointed out that looking after them in hospital cost roughly double looking after them in a nursing home. A lot of other problems from that time may have eased with better weather.
The Minister subsequently commissioned a special survey, which said that, on 26 February, there were 26 such persons in the Eastern health and social services board area, 30 in the Southern HSSB area, 65 in the Northern HSSB area and one in the Western HSSB area, adding up to a total of 122 elderly people who, for one reason or another, were in a hospital bed when they should have been in a nursing home. I appreciate that the number involved changes month by month, and possibly week by week, but there are still far too many people blocking hospital beds when they should be in nursing homes or, in some cases perhaps, receiving domiciliary care.
The Minister told us that he would do something about the problem. He said in his winding-up speech to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee on 28 January that he had earmarked £25 million for community care. Can he tell me this evening whether the domiciliary care element has been resolved? If it has, is its resolution permanent or temporary? Will that extra £25 million be available this year, next year and from here on out to deal with this on-going problem? Although the money is welcome, it applies only to domiciliary care. What extra provision has the Minister managed to make, in the current estimates and for future years, for residential care? That problem must be attended to. It has gone on for far too long, and if the Minister looks at it carefully, he will realise that savings could be made by putting those elderly folk and some of the very frail into the cheapest accommodation that is capable of meeting their needs. There is no reason why that should not be done when nursing home places are available.
I have been listening with interest to the various statements that have been made on the roads programme this evening and reading what has been said about it in the Northern Ireland press. I have also read the papers issued by the Northern Ireland information service on 16 June, which say that £155 million is to be spent on the roads programme during the next year. I am not too clear about what it will be spent on. We are not told, for instance, whether it embodies the Belfast harbour money, but apparently £155 million is available.
Interestingly, the chief executive of the Roads Service, Mr. McCoubrey, said:
Roads are the backbone of Northern Ireland's social and economic life and it is essential not only to preserve this important asset but also to make the best use of it.
None of us would deny that, although sometimes when we look at the Government's policy on taxing lorries and fuel, we begin to wonder whether they really understand the vital necessity of a sound road network in Northern Ireland and of transport for what is essentially a rural community.
I believe that roads are the backbone of Northern Ireland's social and economic life. Too little money has been spent on them, especially on major rebuild, bypasses and maintenance. I therefore hope that much more money will be found and that the Government will set out a long-term programme of major works, giving some idea of when they will come up and prioritising them, and will stick to it. We have had enough chopping, changing and shifting about over the past 20 years to last us three lifetimes, never mind one. People have been told time and again that bypasses will be built.
The bypass in my local town, Dungiven, has been on and off the programme for many years. I declare an interest—or rather a loss—in that regard, as I have a small portion of ground that will be taken up for that road when it is built. When I was in my late teens or early 20s—nearly 40 years ago—a roads officials came round to the house and told my father that we would probably lose that bit of field within the next couple of years. My father and I debated seriously whether we should go ahead with necessary land drainage. We have done it a couple of times since and the road is still not there. It is not the most important bypass in my constituency. I think that the most important is Limavady, although others may disagree.
I hope that when we have a priority list, with the main road from Belfast to Larne at the top, we will stick to it until it is completed and not allow ourselves to be blown off course when somebody else comes in screaming their head off a bit louder than the folk who rely on the word of Governments and officials.
There is much that I could say about agriculture, not least about the perilous state of the pig industry. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be far better able to expand on that than I. The remaining hon. Members have nearly an hour in which to put their points before the House and to the Minister.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I shall not take the line that some hon. Members have developed, but I shall refer to the concept of democratic control in the light of the experience of the Angolan Parliament. Angola elected a Government of national reconstruction, but people quickly returned to their weapons, and the country continues to be in turmoil. Some of us are concerned about what may be going on in Northern Ireland.
Can the Minister tell us whether expenditure on water and related services will be required to deal with the problem of lead pipes? They are still around. I raised the issue in the House the last time we discussed appropriation orders and in the Northern Ireland Grand


Committee because there is much concern. Action is being taken on one estate to which I drew attention, but larger areas are affected.
Vote 12 deals with expenditure on education. I pay tribute to the work that is being done in our schools, from the youngest to the oldest. I particularly pay tribute to Rathmore convent school in my constituency, which again won the bar competition. Methodist college still shines in the performing arts, and will be in the Olivier theatre on 12 July—that will be an appropriate evening, even though it may bring me back earlier than usual.
Has the Minister any information on the number of families affected by the decision on nursery education to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred? Many people in gainful employment who want to purchase places find it difficult to obtain them, and others who are in the state system of nursery education have been told that although their names were on a list they could no longer be accepted. How will that affect employment patterns?
I represent at least three of the wards of greatest deprivation in Northern Ireland and many other parts of south Belfast where there is need. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, I support the concept of helping families that need help, but we must also be careful not to destroy a sector in which people have been working hard and making sacrifices to make an economic contribution to society.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) welcomed the 6 per cent. increase above inflation. We must also bear in mind the fact that Government policies have unfortunately added to the cost of the education budget in Northern Ireland. We have the controlled sector, which is the state sector, the maintained sector, which is the voluntary sector, and now we have the other voluntary sector, the integrated sector. Some people want Irish-language schools. I appreciate that, in its own way, each sector is meeting particular needs. None the less, that fragments the whole education provision and, given structural and staffing costs, it eats into the budget. That aspect is often forgotten.
Under vote 14, can the Minister tell us what will happen with the hospital development programme in the light of the judicial review of the Jubilee hospital closure? Has money been made available so that the new maternity provision will be up and running very shortly, or are the Government relying on people voting with their feet? That new maternity provision may not be required, because people will go to other hospitals outside Belfast.
What impact will that decision have on the provision of new cancer services on the city hospital site? The spectre of cancer is overshadowing the whole community. Although we welcome development in the area, the harsh reality is that the specialist centre for cancer research and provision that was planned for the city site is vital to deal with the growing problem.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said about long-term health care. I want to raise two other aspects. Has proper attention been given to those with multiple sclerosis? The Multiple Sclerosis Society in Northern Ireland has done commendable work: it recently opened one of the finest training and research centres in the United Kingdom.

Some time ago, however, it was asked to move from Peter Scott Martin house at Cullybacky to the Dalriada unit at Ballycastle. Most folk are reasonably conservative. They do not like moving; old habits die hard. However, I suggested that the society visit Ballycastle, because I thought that it would provide better services than Peter Scott Martin house. It did so, and thanked me for my guidance. It has now arranged to transfer its provision to Ballycastle.
Under the purchaser-provider system—which, theoretically, has now been done away with—boards purchased not to provide specialist services in Dalriada but, quite often, to provide them in residential or nursing homes in their own areas, where it was cheaper. That meant that MS sufferers were not receiving the treatment and conditions that were available in Dalriada. I have written letters about this, and await responses. In the budget, has any consideration been given to rebuilding the provision of care in Dalriada?
Another problem is myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME. In parts of the kingdom as a whole, and particularly in Northern Ireland, there are medical practitioners who have not a clue about it. No one on the Western health and social services board has made any special study of it, and as a result people are not receiving the services that they require. Too many people still accuse sufferers of malingering. I understand part of the problem. It is possible to malinger with back pain, for instance, and I realise that medical people are sometimes caught by means of that diagnosis. None the less, it appears from approaches made to me that more provision is needed for ME care in Northern Ireland.
Let me now raise what I realise are narrow points. I do not expect specific answers tonight, but I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in writing.
On vote 18, are we really satisfied that social security benefits are going to the right people? Some people might wonder why I ask such a question, or tell me that I should not believe everything that I read in the newspapers—I do not believe everything that I read in them, but usually read between the lines so that I might get a sense of what is really happening. However, there is something wrong with the social security system.
When we asked the previous Government whether Gerry Adams was receiving social security payments, we were told that he was not. Subsequently, however, we discovered that he was receiving such payments, although a job was available for him. Anyone who thought that there was an unemployed barman in Belfast was not living in the same Belfast that I was.
Now, the weekend's newspapers have reported that Paul Downey, one of the latest victims of terrorist murder—in the drug scene, it is true, but we dissociate ourselves from anyone taking the law into his own hands and murdering anyone—not only owned several houses and his own firm, but was, in the jargon, signing on the dole each week. Will the Minister clarify whether Paul Downey was being so paid, or whether another poor clerk was made to fear for his or her own life and allow the benefit to be paid, rather than passing the matter to a senior person, who receives protection, to take the decision not to pay it?
We should not allow flagrant abuses of the social security system. Many men and women have worked faithfully all their lives, but are made redundant when


their firm ceases trading. They go through purgatory, with social security staff asking them why they are claiming benefit. In other cases, however, people who are well known in the community for their practices are wrongly claiming and receiving social security benefit.
We have to address those issues—that is one of the reasons why we are in this place. I pay tribute to many of those who work in social security and social services and who are doing a magnificent job. Nevertheless, there seems to be a continual waste of money that is vitally needed elsewhere, especially if, ultimately—as has been said—there might be a hole in appropriations for Northern Ireland.
Many issues in the appropriation order require closer attention. I look forward to the day when we shall have proper scrutiny in a Northern Ireland Assembly, but regret that the House did not have an opportunity properly to debate the report of the constitutional convention of 1975, when Northern Ireland's democratic structures were set aside. We could have had such an Assembly long since. Nevertheless, as the old saying in Ulster goes, "Marry in haste; repent at leisure."
The House quickly abolished the Northern Ireland Parliament, but has found it very difficult to restore to Northern Ireland a proper democratic structure. Although I trust that we shall have such a structure in the reasonably near future, I do not share the confidence expressed today that this will be the final Northern Ireland appropriation order debated in the House.

Mr. William Thompson: I, too, would be surprised if this were the last Northern Ireland appropriation order debated in the House. Given the nature of the new Assembly, and particularly the nature of the proposed Executive—which is completely unworkable—the idea that we shall produce proper local government in Northern Ireland seems to be only a remote possibility. Nevertheless, today's debate gives us an opportunity to say that, as part of the United Kingdom, we welcome the fact that we enjoy the prosperity enjoyed across the United Kingdom.
There are those who tell us that we would be better off looking towards the Irish Republic, where there is a glowing economy which would be good for us. However, we in Northern Ireland are well aware that something that is happening now may not be happening in a year or two. Therefore, it has always been our view that we will do best as an integral part of the United Kingdom, rising and falling with the fortunes of that kingdom.
Had the people of Northern Ireland known that the Assembly would cost them £36 million per year, they might not have been so keen to vote for it. Having voted for it, they now know that it will cost that amount—if it ever gets off the ground.
I refer first to the Department of Education. We welcome the fact that more money has been given to pre-school education, and we welcome the numbers given to the various boards for PEAG pupils. We have heard this evening that the children of parents who are on social security benefits will get preference over others. There is a problem with that, because the children of parents who are not on any of those benefits will be left behind.
The real problem is that there are not yet enough places. I appreciate that the programme will last for three years but, from the figures that I have seen for the Western

education and library board, we will need additional places and a continuation of the programme to fulfil the existing need. I trust that the Minister will consider that.
On the Department of Environment and the roads, I am interested in the sale of Belfast port, because the programme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer included two bypasses in my constituency. I know that design work is going on in connection with these bypasses, but I was concerned when the Minister said this evening that if the port sale did not go through quickly, the schemes might be delayed. These schemes are at an early stage, and it will be some time before the design work is completed and the land is available for them. I hope that that situation will not arise and that the promises will be kept.
As for agriculture, we all know of the tremendous blow suffered by farmers, especially pig farmers in Northern Ireland, many of whom are in dire straits. We had hoped that there would be an upsurge in pig prices. There has been a slight increase, but it is nowhere near the point at which profits can be made. I encourage the Department of Agriculture to look at every possible means of bringing aid and assistance not only to the pig industry, but to the other farming sectors such as beef. I hope that the Department will do everything possible in Europe to get the date-based scheme up and running as soon as possible, so that an adequate number of animals can be killed and their meat exported.
On health and social services, the Public Accounts Committee reported on the scandalous abuse of prescriptions. It is a disgrace that money that could be better used to help needy people and to provide better medication should be wasted. I know that the Department is trying to introduce more accountability. I certainly hope that those efforts will continue and that the scandalous abuse will be stopped.
I am glad that we are a part of the United Kingdom. We benefit from the arrangement, and I trust that it will continue for many years to come.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): This has been an interesting debate. Some of the contributions have certainly kept us awake. For example, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) wanted the rocky road to Dublin to be smoothed out round about Hillsborough. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was unabashed in his enthusiasm for the Assembly, and his sentiments would have done Jimmy Reid proud when he was working at UCS on the Clyde. The comments about my colleagues and me being Thatcherite will live with me for some time.
This is an historic debate, because it will be the last time that Northern Ireland appropriations are discussed in the House; thereafter, they will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I will answer as many points as I can, and I promise to write to hon. Members about those that I cannot cover.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke about the Industrial Development Board and said that £84 million was available; in fact, about £153 million has been made available in 1999–2000. That is a considerable commitment of resources to assist the Northern Ireland economy. The economy that


he described was not the Northern Ireland economy; the output of manufacturing and production industries in Northern Ireland continues to rise at a rate well above the national average.
For example, over the past four years, Northern Ireland's manufacturing sector has increased its output by almost 12 per cent., compared with growth of only 0.5 per cent. nationally, and there has been significant improvement in the Province's gross domestic product relative to the United Kingdom's, with GDP per head rising from 76.9 per cent. of the national average in 1990 to 80.4 per cent. by 1997. The economic scene is good.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the national minimum wage. He will be aware that low pay is more prevalent in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so the minimum wage will benefit people there very much. I have yet to hear any criticism of its introduction from any quarter in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the cost per place of the new deal. I will write to him with the details, but I can tell him now that, in 1999–2000, £72 million has been allocated for the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, providing about 9,000 places, and we will have about 16,000 places for over-25s. We also have a very good record on the new deal in Northern Ireland, especially in the number of employers who have taken an interest. They have reacted enthusiastically to our proposals and almost 3,000 have signed agreements to deliver the employment option and 7,000 long-term unemployed have entered the new deal for the 25-plus. To date, 745 have gained employment.
It is also important to remember that the new deal also has a quality training element. It is a welfare-to-work programme. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned the ACE programme, and I sympathise with the comments I have received from hon. Members about that programme. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have met several delegations and, in the past week or so, I have met the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and his colleagues. I take the issues they have raised very seriously and I have established a dedicated team, made up of officials from all Departments in Northern Ireland. I consider it a problem across the subjects—health, education and agriculture—and it is important for that dedicated team to consider the problems.
The hon. Member for South Down mentioned the Belfast port, as did the hon. Members for Lagan Valley, for Belfast, East, for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Because of the timing and the size of the receipts from the port, programmes beyond those exclusive to the projects in the Chancellor's initiative would be affected in the short term. All possible steps will be taken to minimise the effects, but they cannot be totally eliminated because the receipts were included in the spending proposals at the early stages.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked about the effect on the roads programme. If receipts are not forthcoming, some road schemes will have to be delayed. Shortfall on the block may help, but there will be many urgent claims on the money for other programmes in,

for example, health and education. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the comprehensive spending review, we chose our priorities, and health and education were at the top.
The sale of Belfast port will be a matter for the Assembly. In 10 days' time, when the Assembly takes over, hon. Members from Northern Ireland will be dealing with the issue themselves. It is for the Belfast harbour commissioners to bring forward a proposal for the sale. Their current proposals merit careful consideration. After devolution, that will be a matter for the Assembly.
The hon. Member for South Down mentioned the Chancellor's initiative and the implication for other budgets, especially education. Until the position on the sale is clarified, it is only prudent that we should delay entry into some capital commitments. It will affect the start date for several school projects and it will also be necessary to hold back some minor works. However, I emphasise that no schemes have been cancelled and we expect projects still to commence before the end of this financial year. These are contingency measures only.

Mr. Donaldson: Will the Minister clarify what he has just said about the receipts from the privatisation of Belfast port? I understood that the Chancellor's package, which arises out of the privatisation of the port, related specifically to special roads programmes. I was not aware that it had any impact on schemes involving schools and I would be concerned if that were the case.

Mr. McFall: The thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said is right, but the timing of the projects is crucial. There may be a short delay with the schools projects, but there is no chance that any will be cancelled. It is very important that that message is sent out tonight.
The hon. Member for South Down asked about the Strangford ferry.

Mr. Öpik: Before the Minister moves on, will he answer my question? Will he confirm that all the receipts from the sale of Belfast port will be ring-fenced for reinvestment in Northern Ireland, and that the Chancellor will not put money from the sale into the Treasury's coffers?

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman said that £70 million was expected to accrue from the sale of the port. The normal procedure is that that money would go to the Treasury, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a specific commitment that the money from this sale would go back into Northern Ireland and the block grant. However, discussions are in hand between my right hon. Friend and Lord Dubs on this matter.
The hon. Member for South Down asked whether the Strangford ferry would be replaced. He gives a unique resonance to the saying that all politics is local: whenever I go to his constituency, he has a plethora of matters for me to attend to. I can tell him that the Government are fully conscious of the importance of the Strangford ferry. We will be making funding available to provide a replacement as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) mentioned the Armagh observatory and planetarium. Having followed him in hot pursuit on a visit there, I know of his family interest in such matters and of his grandfather's great contribution to that excellent


institution. Although the hon. Gentleman will know that we allocate budgets across a wide range of priority demands, I can assure him that we have found a way to way to maintain the real cash value of the grants to the observatory and the planetarium.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire also mentioned rural development. The Government have worked with local communities to introduce 76 regeneration projects, bringing a total investment of more than £37 million to disadvantaged rural areas of Northern Ireland. The result will be the creation of 380 jobs in those areas, where there are often few alternative employment opportunities. The Leader II programme is set to create more than 300 jobs and almost 130 new businesses.
The hon. Members for South Down and for Lagan Valley mentioned the differential in petrol prices between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Government fully accept the concerns expressed about that differential, and about its adverse effect on petrol retailers, especially in the border areas. The differential is mainly the result of the different tax regimes in the United Kingdom and the Republic. I am aware that there has been some pressure for the introduction of a rebate scheme in Northern Ireland, similar to that which operates on the border between the Netherlands and Germany. However, the European Commission has questioned the legality of that scheme, and any such scheme would have to be able to meet European rules. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has received representations on the matter, and is considering them at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) asked about the link between Port Glasgow and Northern Ireland. He will appreciate that that is a commercial undertaking, which the Government cannot support directly. However, any new service would have to be considered on the same terms as exist at present. My hon. Friend will know that P and O in Troon has already taken advantage of that. Given the advent of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the greater economic opportunities, I am sure that we shall hear more from my hon. Friend on this important issue as the weeks and months pass.
I defer to my hon. Friend on the subject of fisheries. I shall write to him about the issues that he raised. He also talked about training at Harland and Wolff. The Government have put great emphasis on training. In my Department, more than £260 million is being made available in the current financial year through the Training and Employment Agency. Almost £135 million of that is for promoting and improving the skills of those seeking work. The job skills programme, aimed at 16 and 17-year-olds, has achieved a 60 per cent. success rate at NVQ level 2. The modern apprenticeships programme aims to provide the skills needed by manufacturers, including Harland and Wolff. We are alive to the issue.
My hon. Friend also mentioned PlayBoard and the support for development officers. I have had a range of letters from Members of Parliament and Assembly representatives on that. The Government are committed to investing in the young people of Northern Ireland. We have initiated a major programme for the development of pre-school facilities. That will be further assisted by the valuable resources coming from the new opportunities fund. In that context, I am happy to look further at the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. They have to be considered in the context of pre-school provision.
When the Government came to office in May 1997, there was only 45 per cent. provision of pre-school places in Northern Ireland. Under our four-year programme, it will be 70 per cent. by September this year and 85 per cent. in September 2001. We are thus providing an expansion in pre-school places.
Concern has been expressed in the media about the social criteria. The Government looked for the best way to assist education for the young people of Northern Ireland and we decided to target resources at an early stage. All education research, right back to Lyndon Johnson's headstart programme in 1960s America, shows that we have to start early and put money into socially disadvantaged areas, because that provides greater educational opportunities.
The Government have tackled the issue in Northern Ireland. I want to demolish the notion that only those from socially disadvantaged areas can get into nursery schools. From September, two out of every three parents will have their wish for a nursery school place granted. Some 60 per cent. of them will be from non-disadvantaged homes. The bulk will go to the non-disadvantaged, but there is a place for the disadvantaged.
Our policy has run up against several problems. The hon. Member for Belfast, East and others have told me about the problems of open enrolment and multiple applications. People ask me why we cannot determine the places now. One family could apply to 12 nursery schools. With no central record of where they have applied, that causes problems. After receiving representations from hon. Members, I established what in good Labour party terms could be called a focus group. I called it a working party, but one of my officials called it a focus group. The group consisted of members of the Department and the boards to try to find out what was happening on the ground. We have tightened the arrangement between the Department and the boards so that we have that information, know what direction we are moving in and can ensure that, by 2001, 85 per cent. of the population will get pre-school places. I hope that I have gone some way to reassure hon. Members on the admission criteria and on our aims.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked about ACE, the action for community employment programme. Again, he is correct; the issue is causing us problems. When the Government came to power in May 1997, we decided that our macro-economic policy would be the new deal, or welfare to work. We take people, particularly young people, from welfare and unemployment and give them good training so that in a global economy and flexible market they will be equipped with the skills to get jobs. That has clashed with the ACE programme, which was set up in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s for very good reasons. Unemployment was almost 18 per cent., compared with today's figure of slightly more than 7 per cent.
Three regions in the United Kingdom, including Scotland, have higher unemployment than Northern Ireland. We are adapting the new deal programme for good reasons, but as far as possible, we do not want to lose the good work that is going on locally. Again, I have established a dedicated team to look at what is happening on the ground and encourage the 180 ACE groups to transfer and make a good fit as between ACE and the new deal. I do not hide the problems, but hon. Members know


that we are trying to ensure that ACE fits in as well as possible with the Government's macro-economic priorities in the new deal.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned Cregagh primary school. I well remember my visit with him and the impression that the concrete cancer there made on me. More particularly, I remember the impression that the local community made on me, particularly the women whom I met. I would go back and examine that issue. In the schools programme, we announced projects worth £64 million, the biggest capital development programme ever for schools in Northern Ireland. I was sorry that Cregagh was not part of that, but no economic assessment and development programme had then been established by the board.
I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman is to ensure that we get a replacement for the school, because we must support the community. Those people were burning with pride at the contribution of their school to the community. The school and community went hand in hand. I took that image away with me. In the 10 days to 1 July, it is unlikely that I will make great progress on that, but I will certainly leave a file for my successor to illustrate the deficiencies and the community's need for another school.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East made much of the Assembly estimates, but my right hon. Friend the Minister covered that comprehensively in his opening remarks. We have acknowledged the problems, but it is clear that the new Assembly will get the funds that it needs. In future, it will be responsible for voting its own provision. I do not think that we should say much more on that.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned the block expenditure and the limits on it. As he knows, expenditure plans are reflected in the estimates. Some expenditures slip as the year proceeds and needs have to be reallocated. New provision may be made in the national Budget. Those facts are reflected in the supplementary estimates. That will continue to be the case under the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly, so it will be considered under the supplementary estimates element. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Saville inquiry, and the expenditure on legal aid and whether that was charged to the Northern Ireland block. I can state categorically that it is not. The charge is met from the Lord Chancellor's budget, so it has no impact on the block.

Mr. William Ross: In the circumstances, why are the negotiations not being dealt with in the normal way? It appears that the negotiations, the fees for solicitors and all the rest are being dealt with in a novel fashion.

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman has information that has not been shared with me or with other hon. Members. I will examine the matter and, in the usual tradition, write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Joined-up government.

Mr. McFall: That is what hon. Members are getting tonight.
With my health hat on, I am very much aware of the deficiencies in community care services in Northern Ireland. I deliver a little sermon on this issue wherever

I go, but I will not bore the House with it tonight as time is short. There is a need to change priorities in the health service and concentrate on primary and community care.
Northern Ireland has 16 acute hospitals—all singing, all dancing hospitals—to serve a population of 1.5 million. That situation cannot continue if we are to provide the best possible health service for the people of Northern Ireland. We must introduce some changes, but we cannot do that overnight. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry knows from the documents that I produced in November, entitled "Putting it Right", which was about the hospital service, and "Fit for the Future", about organisational arrangements, it will take a little time. Meanwhile, it is important to address the concerns of community care.
The Government's priority is to support people at home or in their own communities and to respond flexibly and assess need sensitively. We provided an additional recurring £5 million for community care in the 1998–99 programme. Several months ago, I released an extra £6.5 million to help ease the pressures on health and social services over the winter months. We have allocated a further £25 million this year for general community care services, which includes the domiciliary care to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Some £5 million of that funding will be spent on providing better services for people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. I suggest that that is a substantial allocation that will enable boards to restore public confidence in community care services.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry knows that I gave Eastern health board an extra £39 million several months ago, of which I asked that £10 million be spent on community care. The board decided to use the funds to pay off some of its debt, but I met board members and made it clear that the Government wanted the money to be spent on community care. There is a problem with the present structure of the health service and the debts that some trusts and boards have. However, it is important to send that key message, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned maternity services and acute hospital reorganisation. He referred to Justice Coghlin's decision that the Jubilee hospital case must be reviewed. The petitioners made their case on three grounds and, following consultation, Justice Coghlin said that the Department would need to re-examine the third ground. The Department is obviously disappointed that the result means further uncertainty for mothers-to-be, and it is my priority to remove that uncertainty as soon as possible.
I will be back in Belfast tomorrow morning and I will certainly consider the Jubilee hospital review. I will issue a consultation paper on the matter shortly. I hope that the consultative process can be completed by the end of September and that I—or the Assembly—can announce the decision soon after that. There are implications for cancer care services, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South pointed out, so it is important to remove uncertainty as soon as possible. With that in mind, I shall be dealing with the matter.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned lead in water supplies, and he has written to me and to my noble Friend Lord Dubs on that matter. He also raised it during a Grand Committee debate earlier this year. After the hon. Gentleman's meeting with my noble Friend on 2 June,


the latter asked water service officials to investigate other, related issues so that the hon. Gentleman could be given a substantive response within the next two weeks. He should receive a letter on that matter.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South made some points about the provision of care for sufferers from MS and ME; those points have a resonance with all Members. We are continually petitioned by constituents who suffer from those debilitating diseases and we are told that, as a community, we do not do enough. The hon. Gentleman has raised that issue with me several times; I shall write to him on the specific points that he made.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to cancer services. In line with the Campbell report, the health and social services boards have produced area-strategic services for cancer, and plans for the development of a cancer centre and designated cancer units are well under way. The health and social services executive has identified cancer services as priorities for development. An additional £2 million of the current allocation for 1998–99 and an extra allocation of £7 million in 1999–2000 will allow boards and trusts to make further progress in implementing many of the sound recommendations in the Campbell report. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman on that.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made several points that also threaded through the concerns of other hon. Members. He addressed the issue of the fall in agricultural income. As 1998 unfolded, the Government were aware that the situation was serious. We took steps in the form of aid packages—the most recent of which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in November 1998. The prospects now look a little brighter; the beef export ban has been lifted, albeit with restrictions; some commodity markets have strengthened; and interest rates have fallen in recent months. In the face of competing demands for finite resources, Agriculture Ministers have secured the best deal possible. It must be understood that there is a limit to the Government's ability to provide direct financial assistance to the farming sector.
To sum up, we have had a full and worthy debate. The Good Friday agreement and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly have been mentioned. Tonight, we have discussed the real bread-and-butter issues—those that affect each of our constituents. I am delighted that Ministers were able to respond, in part, to people's concerns, but I shall be even more delighted—like other right hon. and hon. Members—when such responses become a proper function of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INCOME TAX

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kuwait) Order 1999 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 10th May.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

INCINERATION OF WASTE

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12791/98, a draft Council Directive on the incineration of waste, and of European Union Document No. 12756/97, a proposed amendment to Directive 94/67/EC on incineration of hazardous waste, and endorses the Government's approach to these documents.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Swimming (Schools)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

1 am

Valerie Davey: Even at this early hour of the morning, I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to promote discussion about the state of swimming education in primary schools.
In most local education authorities, "Every child a swimmer" is no longer a statement of intent. In many LEAs, just how many children leave primary school able to swim is, as I shall show, an unanswered or even an unasked question. This is a timely debate, bearing in mind the current review of the national curriculum for primary physical education. I acknowledge the detailed information that I have been given by the Swim For Life campaign, which incorporates the Amateur Swimming Association, the Royal Life Saving Society and the English Schools Swimming Association.
My interest was prompted by a constituent, Mr. Gerry Hicks, a tireless campaigner for improved sports provision for children. He welcomed the reduction in the sale of school playing fields by the Labour Government and their commitment to sport generally, but has specific concerns, which I share, about swimming.
The debate is not new. In June 1991, a report by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts showed that for 44 per cent. of 11-year-olds there was no swimming in the curriculum, and that in the three years preceding the report, almost 200 children had died in drowning accidents—80 per cent. of whom could not swim. The report recommended that every child be taught to swim and that the necessary resources be provided. In 1996, there were 60 deaths by drowning—so the figures have barely improved—yet an Amateur Swimming Association survey in 1997 showed that 23 per cent. of all schools recorded a decrease in their provision of swimming lessons.
Evidence of poor attainment has come more recently from another source. A humorous article in The Guardian in September stated that the Royal Navy had sent an SOS to the Government to help reduce the number of would-be sailors who could not swim—20 per cent. of recruits were failing the test of swimming the length of a pool in overalls and treading water for three minutes. That figure compares with a failure rate of 15 per cent. in 1984. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has written to the Department for Education and Employment, saying that the Royal Navy would welcome any changes to the curriculum that result in more teaching of swimming in schools. I start with a strong ally for my case.
The present situation raises the question whether current policy is enabling every child to become a swimmer. I would like to think so, but we appear to be moving further and further away from that objective. I say "appear" because evidence is not easily available. The DfEE does not hold details of whether we are meeting the national curriculum requirement at key stage 2
to swim unaided, competently and safely for at least 25 metres".
Parliamentary questions have met with the reply that the Department does not currently collect that information—nor does the Office For Standards in Education.
The 1997–98 Ofsted annual report says:
Most schools are able to provide a reasonably balanced programme of P. E., including swimming lessons",
but that is not based on statistical evidence. The office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales had rather more specific information. The 1996–97 annual report on Wales, under physical information, stated:
Standards in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 have improved significantly. The best standards are achieved in swimming, where nearly all pupils make satisfactory to good progress".
In response to my inquiry, I was assured that
the majority of pupils achieve the statutory target of swimming at least 25 metres competently".
Given the lack of centrally held information in England, I wrote to all 151 LEAs asking what percentage of pupils who leave at key stage 2 are able to swim competently and unaided for 25 m, and which factors influenced whether that level of competence was reached. I had a good response, with more than two thirds—69 per cent.—of authorities replying. My thanks go to all LEA officers, some schools and a few concerned individuals who took the trouble to send information and ideas. It was much appreciated, given all the other demands on their time.
A few authorities have a very well established swimming policy and could give me detailed information, including statistics of each school's attainment at each pool. I refuse to name and shame, but I would like to name and fame the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, Cumbria county council and Salford metropolitan borough council for their high attainment, and Kirklees metropolitan council and Oxfordshire county council for their detailed statistics. From the responses that I received, 64 per cent. could give me the number of children who are able to swim 25 m at key stage 2, although a significant number of those replies were approximations.
Some authorities that did not hold attainment records were still able to give me details of the provision that they do or do not make. One authority provides 30 weeks' swimming a year at key stage 2 but has no record of the children's achievement. A minority of authorities had no records and, from the tone of the letter, it seemed that they did not regard swimming as an important part of the national curriculum. One wrote:
the LEA does not collect information … we are currently very focused on meeting challenging targets for attainment in mathematics and English.
Other authorities stated that because there has been no requirement to collect the data, they felt that there was no need to do so—a national curriculum requirement is therefore unrecorded. Some authorities, as a result of my letter, carried out impromptu assessments, while others did not have the relevant data because they are new authorities.
There was a huge variance in the responses. The answer to the key question, "What percentage of children could swim 25 metres?", varied from 98 per cent. down to as low as 28 per cent. Remember that this is just 64 per cent. of the 69 per cent. that replied, so that is less than 50 per cent. of all LEAs, and those respondents are likely to be those most interested in swimming.
LEAs pointed to five main difficulties in providing swimming lessons—the literacy hour, fair funding, the need for parental contributions, time and the lack of trained teachers. According to more than 30 authorities


that I contacted, the literacy hour has had a detrimental effect on the provision of swimming lessons. One authority described the problem clearly:
Schools are covering Literacy Hour in the morning and pushing most of their PE work into the afternoon—this brings pressure on existing facilities, particularly the school hall and also specialist facilities like swimming pools. What is significant is that a … provision
made previously
for pupils of all ages has now been reduced to provision for one or two year groups only. This tends to be Year 6.
Another stated:
School Heads are considering the provision of swimming lessons for one term, rather than the whole year".
A vast number raised the issue of fair funding. One authority stated that swimming lessons had declined steadily since the introduction of local management of schools, but most specifically mentioned fair funding. Delegated budgets are not always spent on swimming, and the Amateur Swimming Association wants that element to be ring-fenced.
I have been given clear evidence of reduced provision. One authority pointed out that lessons had been cut to 15 half-hour lessons for key stage 2, not necessarily in year 6. In two authorities, swimming programmes stopped before year 6, and in both cases, fewer than 50 per cent. of children could swim 25 m.
Authorities stressed the problem of schools having to ask parents for voluntary contributions of up to £3.40 a week towards the swimming lessons. Parents were not happy to be asked to fund a statutory element of the curriculum. The latest research conducted by the Swim for Life campaign shows that 41 per cent. of schools sought a parental contribution, and the survey conducted by the National Association of Head Teachers in March revealed a similar percentage. A few authorities, mostly in rural areas, highlighted the problem of time, when 20 minutes in the water meant, with transport and changing, two hours out of the timetable.
Some authorities, including my authority, Bristol, pointed to the lack of qualified teachers. The Amateur Swimming Association sought sponsorship to remedy this problem, and BT has contributed £0.5 million for training primary school teachers. So far, 72 LEAs have teachers in training. I welcome that but, for the long term, I want swimming training to be reinstated in initial teacher training courses.
Another underlying concern, to which I shall return, is the need to modernise or replace many of the old municipal pools, which are reaching the end of their useful life.
Many authorities are anxious about the recommendations that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has made to the Secretary of State concerning changes in the national curriculum for PE. Following consultation between January and March this year, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority proposed that the requirement to swim 25 m be replaced with a requirement that did not stipulate a distance, but recognised that 25 m is not always sufficient to ensure safety in the water. I agree with that proposal, but if many schools do not keep records of the 25 m attainment, how many will record less measurable requirements?
The Swim for Life campaign notes that it is a dangerous assumption that swimming 25 m in a pool is a satisfactory definition of being able to swim, and reminds us that

before the national curriculum, most schools expected children to be able to swim at least 100 m before they left primary school.
Almost 60 per cent. of the LEAs that could give me figures stated that more than 80 per cent. of children reached the 25 m requirement. However, given the lack of emphasis on water skills and safety, and the fact that 25 m is not a great distance, that is hardly cause for celebration.
The level of attainment in swimming at key stage 2 needs to be clarified and the standard raised, even though the evidence points to reduced provision. The double challenge must be met, because swimming is a vital, if at present undervalued, aspect of the key stage 2 curriculum. Swimming is a life-saver and of all sports it is probably the most beneficial for health at every stage of life. Swimming is also the gateway skill that gives access to other water activities, such as canoeing, surfing and sailing. It remains a relatively inexpensive sport, is good fun and can be for life.
My conclusions are that the current resourcing of primary school swimming, in terms of time, funding, professional staff and facilities, is a matter of serious concern. Swimming should be respected as a requirement of the national curriculum, in the same way as other subjects such as mathematics and English, and the expectation of achievement should be as high.
Some schools and LEAs record achievement now. In future, consistent monitoring should be required of all schools, LEAs and Ofsted. A rigorous inspection process is essential if schools are to be encouraged to provide an appropriate swimming programme. As regards funding, I believe that financial resources for swimming should be identified separately and that LEAs should have a duty to ensure provision.
In 1994 the Education Committee visited Japan, where the Government, having made swimming compulsory, had begun a comprehensive programme to ensure that every school had its own pool. I admire such commitment, and recognise that Sport England is making some new provision, but it is literally something of a lottery, although more proactive measures are being undertaken. The new funding for sports co-ordinators announced over the weekend by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is excellent news. I trust that it includes funding for swimming instructors, because swimming galas are also—dare I say it—floundering.
Bristol is typical of many towns and cities. It has a long and proud tradition of neighbourhood pools, dating back to the turn of the century. The council could boast that it provided the means for every child to become a swimmer. Nine pools remain, but are beyond the resources of the city council to refurbish or replace. It is to the city's credit that it is consulting with Sport England and the private and voluntary sectors on a progressive scheme to deliver swimming skills through a core curriculum in schools and the Bristol Community Sports Learn to Swim programme. I admire that imaginative option.
There can be no single solution. We cannot be prescriptive, but there should be a single objective. Bristol LEA used to boast, "Every child a swimmer, every swimmer a lifesaver." That is the standard for which I hope Bristol will again provide, and which I would like to see established nationally.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing the debate and on the way in which she has presented her case. The Government welcome her remarks about swimming because, like her, we believe that swimming has a vital role. I recognise the interest of many hon. Members in this issue and pay tribute, with my hon. Friend, to the important work of the Swim for Life campaign, the Amateur Swimming Association and the range of organisations with which she has been working.
We believe that swimming is important, both for its intrinsic value as a sport and as an essential safety tool which we are determined all young people should have. It opens the way to a range of other water-based activities, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and is a critical element in the progress of healthy children who can develop themselves in all aspects of their lives. I agree entirely with her assessment of its value and with her objective that every child should be a swimmer.
I am particularly grateful for the trouble that my hon. Friend has taken in preparing for the debate the useful data that she collected from local education authorities throughout the country. She has raised serious issues, and I hope to be able to offer reassurance on a number of points, but those data are an important element of our ability to discuss the issue directly. I shall return to the particular issues that she raised about monitoring and data collecting, which are important in deciding how we are to proceed more generally.
As my hon. Friend said, we are currently reviewing the national curriculum. We are consulting, and I know that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take serious account of the points that have been raised in the debate. We agree wholeheartedly with the points that she made about the advantages of swimming. That is why swimming is a compulsory part of the national curriculum for primary age children and why we ensured that it remained compulsory when we introduced temporary flexibility to other areas of the physical education national curriculum in September last year.
Our proposals for the new revised national curriculum retain a compulsory swimming element for seven to 11-year-olds; provide an option for schools to teach swimming to five to seven-year-olds, because the earlier young people learn the essential skills the better; and provide the opportunity for skills to be further developed in secondary schools. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the national curriculum requirement to swim 25 m unaided, in relation to its importance and its limitation as a measure of achievement. That distance is not the be-all and end-all of what swimming in schools should be about, but it is an important benchmark.
The proposals on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is presently consulting retain the stipulation that, by the age of 11, pupils should be taught to swim 25 m unaided. We propose specific requirements for swimming activity and water safety, and the proposals state:
Pupils should be taught to:

(a) swim unaided for more sustained periods of time using recognised arm and leg actions, and strokes on front and back, and then to increase the range of strokes and skills;

(b) pace their effort appropriately for challenges related to time and distance for floating and swimming, including swimming at least 25 metres unaided, and then to plan individually and collaboratively in groups to meet challenges related to speed, distance and personal survival;
(c) recognise and describe the effectiveness of their own performance, and then to evaluate it and suggest ways to improve the quality of their performance and water safety."

I suggest that those requirements—they are set out in our proposals for the national curriculum, which provides a more comprehensive definition of what children should do—will enable them to develop their skills and help them to be safe in water in a wide range of different situations.
I of course acknowledge my hon. Friend's point that safety around water can never be guaranteed. Even experienced adult swimmers can drown in conditions in which swimming 25 m is very difficult, for example in rough seas. That is why we have specifically chosen in the review to give greater explicit prominence in the curriculum to water safety. I acknowledge that that may not go as far as she wants, but I believe that it is an important step in the right direction.
I hope that my remarks help to ease the concerns that schools and local education authorities have expressed to my hon. Friend, and I urge all those with an interest in the national curriculum to contribute to the consultation exercise, which the QCA is conducting on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is a genuine consultation and we shall listen not only to what my hon. Friend has said this evening, but to representations from those concerned from now until the end of July, when the consultation period ends. The QCA is working on guidance and schemes of work on swimming, as on other aspects of the curriculum, in consultation with schools and other key players, to ensure that proper guidance is provided in those areas.
My hon. Friend raised five other issues, which I should like to address: first, the literacy hour; secondly, fair funding; thirdly, voluntary contributions; fourthly; time pressures; and, fifthly, lack of qualified teachers. I shall take those points in the order in which she raised them.
On the effect of the literacy hour, I make no apology for the fact that the Government are concentrating their effort on literacy and numeracy. They are important requirements, which are essential to our efforts to raise educational standards. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed to hear that it is not the Government's intention to lower our emphasis on those subjects. They must be the top priority for all schools. However, I acknowledge her point that swimming and some other subjects are also very important in the primary school curriculum. That is why we believe that it is possible to meet national curriculum requirements for swimming in schools across the country, despite the obligations for literacy and numeracy.
I know that my hon. Friend was not suggesting that we dump literacy and numeracy. Some people argue that there is a polarity between focusing on basic educational standards in literacy and numeracy, and developing the wider curriculum, both in relation to swimming and in other areas. I do not believe that that polarity exists. I acknowledge that there are time pressures and problems, but schools can be and are effective in addressing those issues and providing swimming across the range.
On our analysis of the average taught time in primary schools, we believe that, even now, literacy and numeracy lessons leave enough time for swimming and other national curriculum subjects. It is important to encourage flexibility in timetabling in schools, to reduce pressure on facilities and to make time available in both mornings and afternoons, and we do not believe that swimming needs to be damaged. However, I acknowledge that we all need more data on that. Were there demonstrable proof that literacy and numeracy hours were somehow damaging that area, we would look at ways in which to deal with that effectively.
Secondly, my hon. Friend raised the issue of fair funding and its implications, and reported concerns about funding for swimming—particularly the implications of delegation. We received few representations from local education authorities about the funding of swimming last year when we had responses to our "Fair Funding" consultation paper, or later when we consulted them on the detail of the financing of maintained schools' regulations. That may reflect the point that she raised—that swimming is not a high enough priority in LEAs' preoccupations—but the fact remains that that was not what they said to us in the consultation.
As my hon. Friend said, the regulations are based on the premise that the cost of swimming lessons should be met from schools' delegated budgets, whether lessons are provided on site in schools' own pools, or whether off-site facilities have to be used. The regulations allow LEAs to include in their funding formulae factors that take account of schools' need to spend money on the hire of off-site facilities, or on transport to and from off-site swimming lessons. Transport can be an extremely important inhibiting factor. LEAs can also allocate additional funding to schools with on-site pools in recognition of the additional costs.
Our current view—although, again, I refer to the need for more data and acknowledge my hon. Friend's observations in this area—is that the regulations provide sufficient flexibility to enable LEAs and schools to meet the requirements of the national curriculum and, if they so choose, to go beyond them.. If there is clear evidence, through more data, of a need for greater flexibility in LEA formulae than the regulations currently allow, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall consider what more should be done in response to that evidence. We are also delegating funds in the context of a substantial funding increase for education, following the comprehensive spending review and the significant extra resources that have been allocated.
I share my hon. Friend's concerns about voluntary contributions. If voluntary contributions are a substantial part of fundraising for this important aspect of the national curriculum, we shall consider carefully what needs to be done under the fair funding agreements. We need evidence and data to come to a view, but I am reinforcing her principal point. It would be outrageous if a child were inhibited from studying swimming under the national curriculum because of a funding requirement, but I do not think that my hon. Friend was suggesting that. She was merely arguing that voluntary fundraising was an unacceptably large part of the funding in this area. I am happy to consider that issue in more detail.
I dealt with the time point in my comments on fair funding and the national curriculum review. Perhaps I could remark on my hon. Friend's observation on the announcements to be made about sports co-ordinators for schools. We hope that that approach, which will encompass swimming, will bring swimming and other sports clubs and schools closer together, so that we can liberate more time, energy and skill to developing that area. The jury is still out and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but I honestly believe that we are setting a course that will improve the situation and enable us to make advances in this area.
I hear what my hon. Friend says about the need for qualified teaching of swimming as a more substantial aspect of initial teacher training. As she knows, we are currently carefully considering what to do about the Green Paper on reform of the teaching profession, which we published last December. It makes a series of proposals about ITT and other aspects of teacher training, and includes extra burdens in a variety of areas. Her bid will be considered in that context.
I shall lastly deal with my hon. Friend's fundamental point about information. She suggests that there is a shortage of information about swimming in England. She set out the statistical background and explained some of the difficulties in collecting data. It is true that we do not collect centrally information about the number of key stage 2 pupils who can swim 25 m unaided, but Ofsted inspects swimming, alongside other aspects of the PE curriculum.
The current Ofsted findings are encouraging. The evidence suggests that swimming is one of the best taught aspects of the PE curriculum, that children often make rapid progress in national curriculum swimming, and that success rates are high. Our task is to ensure that we continue to improve that picture. That is why Ofsted, in conjunction with the Amateur Swimming Association, is currently considering a specific survey of swimming in schools during the next academic year to try to provide the systematic data that my hon. Friend has laid the way for in her survey, which she reported to the House this evening and for which she argues eloquently and powerfully, as is her wont. I hope that that specific survey will help to develop a clearer picture of current school swimming provision and achievement, and thus help us to decide what policy steps are needed to make what my hon. Friend described a reality in schools throughout the country. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members have any views on how we could make that survey more effective, I would be delighted to listen to them.
I conclude by reiterating the Government's commitment to swimming in schools. We believe that the proposals in the new national curriculum reaffirm that commitment and that, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend has set out, it is critically important that the Government, schools and swimming bodies work together in partnership to maximise the range and quality of opportunities available.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past One o'clock.